388:("the Wetterling Act") – more specifically, information about persons convicted of offenses involving sexual molestation or sexual exploitation of children, and persons convicted of rape and rape-like offenses (regardless of the age of the victim), respectively. Not all state web sites provide for public disclosure of information about all sex-offenders who reside, work, or attend school in the state. For example, one state may limit public disclosure over its web site of information concerning offenders who have been determined to be high-risk, while another state may provide for wider disclosure of offender information but make no representation as to risk level of specific offenders. Members of the public may be able to obtain certain types of information about specific offenders who reside, work, or attend school in the state and have been convicted of one or more of the types of offenses specified below, depending on the specific parameters of a given State's public notification program.
50:
163:
64:
659:) on June 16, 2009. The Court held that the Missouri Constitution's provision prohibiting laws retrospective in operation no longer exempts individuals from registration if they are subject to the independent Federal obligation created under the Sexual Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913. As a result, many offenders who were previously exempt under the Court's 2006 holding in
648:. The same constitutional amendment was proposed in and passed by the Missouri Senate again in 2008, but also was not passed by the House of Representatives by the end of that year's legislative session. As a result, the decisions of the Missouri courts prohibiting the retrospective application of sex offender laws remained intact.
671:
offenders from residing within 1,000 feet of a school was retrospective in operation as applied to registered sex offenders who had resided at a location within such a distance prior to the enactment of the law. Another exception to the school-residence proximity requirement was handed down by the Court on
January 12, 2010 in
563:
website: On July 25, 2008, Doe number two prevailed and the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's registration violated the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution and ruled that the requirement does not apply to persons who committed their crimes before
487:
However, On July 25, 2008, Doe number two prevailed and the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act's registration violated the ex post facto clause of the state's constitution and ruled that the requirement does not apply to persons who committed their crimes before
432:
In two cases docketed for argument on
November 13, 2003, the sex offender registries of two states, Alaska and Connecticut, would face legal challenge. This was the first instance that the Supreme Court had to examine the implementation of sex offender registries throughout the U.S. The ruling would
666:
On
January 12, 2010, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan ruled that individuals who plead guilty to a sex offense are not required to register under Federal Law and thus are not required to register in Missouri if the date of their plea was prior to the passage of the Missouri registration
670:
Missouri also has a number of laws that restrict the activities of persons required to register as sex offenders, several of which have also been challenged as being retrospective in their operation. On
February 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a law prohibiting registered sex
550:
interest without due process of law." The Court reasoned that the sex offender law authorized "public notification of (the potential registrant's) status as a convicted sex offender without notice, an opportunity to be heard, or any preliminary determination of whether and to what extent (he)
572:
In March 2013 Maryland Court of
Appeals (Highest court of Maryland) decision Doe v. DPSCS declared that Maryland's existing registry laws are punitive in effect, and therefore could not constitutionally be applied retroactively to persons whose crimes pre-dated registration.
385:
76:
383:
State sex-offender registration and notification programs are designed, in general, to include information about offenders who have been convicted of a "criminal offense against a victim who is a minor" or a "sexually violent offense," as specified in the
581:, testifying for the de facto punitive effects of Maryland sex offender law cited in the decision. This decision was further solidified in 2014 with the "Doe 2" decision. The full impact of these decisions in Maryland is still being effected.
639:
proposed an amendment to the
Missouri Constitution that would exempt sex offender registration laws from bar on retrospective civil laws. The proposed amendment passed the State Senate unanimously but was not passed by the
207:
99:
343:
167:
616:
to a registrable offense before the sex offender registration law went into effect on
January 1, 1995. and remanded the case for further consideration in light of that holding. On remand, the
559:
After losing the constitutional challenge in the US Supreme Court in 2002 one of the two Doe's in the case committed suicide. The other Doe began a new challenge in the state courts. Per the
315:
683:, in which the Court found that Charles A. Raynor was not required to comply with R.S.Mo. § 589.426, a law restricting the activities of registered sex offenders on Halloween. In both
1010:
329:
301:
33:
675:. In this case, F.R. was convicted prior to the enactment of the law and the Court held that, as such, he was not required to abide by the restriction. Consolidated with
433:
let the states know how far they could go in informing citizens of perpetrators of sex crimes. The constitutionality of the registries was challenged in two ways:
189:
944:
854:
837:
521:"The Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act's registration provisions apply to them."
294:
20:
868:
808:"Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services v. John Doe - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT ("SORNA")"
92:
624:
ordering that the applicable individuals be removed from the published sex offender list. Defendant
Colonel James Keathley appealed that order to the
498:
234:
375:
and operates a web site search tool allowing a user to submit a single query to obtain information about sex offenders throughout the United States.
336:
372:
419:
The results are limited to what each individual state may provide. Information is hosted by each state, not by the federal government.
1005:
641:
123:
145:
920:
517:
Update: Reynolds V. United States Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. 10–6549.
894:
539:
625:
605:
49:
632:, which affirmed the injunction on April 1, 2008. Keathley filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Missouri.
241:
162:
510:
of those to whom it applied, although the Court "expresses no opinion as to whether the State's law violates
617:
511:
543:
507:
459:
308:
608:
held that the Missouri Constitution did not allow the state to place anyone on the registry who had been
629:
594:
24:
63:
881:
700:
358:
645:
477:
138:
921:""Judge says some Missouri sex offenders don't have to register their locations," January 10,2010"
473:
466:
463:
609:
542:
held that Hawaii's sex offender registration statute violated the due process clause of the
116:
787:"JOHN DOE V. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES - BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE"
730:
636:
262:
16:
Sex offender registry search tool coordinated by the United States Department of Justice
481:
386:
Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act
85:
807:
999:
590:
578:
364:
276:
269:
719:
577:
Maryland chapter, FAIR (Families Advocating Intelligent Registries) was part of the
769:
446:
368:
248:
182:
755:
613:
503:
371:
registries and the U.S. federal government. The registry is coordinated by the
924:
869:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Legislators focus on sex offenders," April 11, 2007.
621:
972:
958:
905:
823:
597:(Article I, Section 13) prohibiting laws "retrospective in operation."
786:
547:
455:
396:
The National Sex Offender Public Registry website supports search by:
451:
731:
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe (01-1231) 538 U.S. 1(2003)
589:
Many successful challenges to sex offender registration laws in the
574:
546:, ruling that it deprived potential registrants "of a protected
770:"Doe v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services"
593:
have been in Missouri because of a unique provision in the
316:
Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States
990:
462:, not punishment, the Court ruled 6-3 that it is not an
651:
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Keathley's appeal (
506:
sex-offender registration statute did not violate the
458:. Reasoning that sex offender registration deals with
302:
National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws
948:, Case No. SC88644 (Mo. banc slip op. Feb. 19, 2008)
858:, Case No. WD68066 (Mo. App. slip op. Apr. 1, 2008)
208:
Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies
960:F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department
850:
848:
673:F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Department
635:In response to these rulings, in 2007, several
519:Argued October 3, 2011—Decided January 23, 2012
450:, 538 U.S. 84 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld
833:
831:
691:, the ruling applies only to the named party.
190:Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe
79:and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act
564:the act became effective on August 10, 1994.
488:the act became effective on August 10, 1994.
337:
8:
1011:Sex offender registries in the United States
295:Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
168:Constitutionality of sex offender registries
21:Sex offender registries in the United States
895:Missouri General Assembly Actions on SJR 34
100:International Megan's Law to Prevent Demand
946:R.L. v. Missouri Department of Corrections
775:. Maryland Court of Appeals. 4 March 2013.
551:actually represents a danger to society."
502:, 538 U.S. 1 (2003), the Court ruled that
344:
330:
93:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
28:
499:Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe
235:Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony
813:. Maryland Court of Appeals. 6 May 2014.
77:Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children
756:"Sex Offender/Child Kidnapper Registry"
712:
40:
974:State of Missouri v. Charles A. Raynor
663:were once again required to register.
256:Controversial designations as offender
991:National Sex Offender Public Registry
361:National Sex Offender Public Registry
7:
879:"Bill backup clogs waning session",
604:194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006), the
561:ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
373:United States Department of Justice
14:
642:Missouri House of Representatives
907:Doe et. al. v. Keathley et. al.,
841:, 194 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. banc 2006)
538:, 36 P.3d 1255 (Haw. 2001), the
409:City/Town (if provided by state)
367:state agencies that host public
363:is a cooperative effort between
161:
124:California Proposition 83 (2006)
62:
48:
309:Women Against Registry - W.A.R.
146:Sexually violent predator laws
1:
454:'s sex-offender registration
406:County (if provided by state)
618:Jackson County Circuit Court
681:State of Missouri v. Raynor
644:before the end of the 2007
1027:
745:, 36 P.3d 1255 (Haw. 2001)
540:Hawaii State Supreme Court
428:U.S. Supreme Court rulings
18:
1006:Sex offender registration
626:Missouri Court of Appeals
606:Supreme Court of Missouri
102:for Child Sex Trafficking
32:This article is part of
637:Missouri state Senators
512:substantive due process
412:State (one or multiple)
176:Supreme Court decisions
41:Sex offender registries
544:Constitution of Hawaii
508:procedural due process
824:Missouri Constitution
595:Missouri Constitution
492:Due process challenge
25:Sex offender registry
19:Further information:
882:The Kansas City Star
701:Murder of Dru Sjodin
210:in the United States
170:in the United States
43:in the United States
646:legislative session
525:State Court rulings
478:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
392:Search capabilities
139:PROTECT Act of 2003
474:John Paul Stevens
423:Constitutionality
354:
353:
158:Constitutionality
1018:
978:
970:
964:
956:
950:
942:
936:
935:
933:
932:
923:. Archived from
917:
911:
903:
897:
892:
886:
877:
871:
866:
860:
852:
843:
835:
826:
821:
815:
814:
812:
804:
798:
797:
796:. 16 April 2011.
791:
783:
777:
776:
774:
766:
760:
759:
752:
746:
740:
734:
728:
722:
717:
602:Doe v. Phillips,
464:unconstitutional
346:
339:
332:
165:
66:
52:
29:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1016:
1015:
996:
995:
987:
982:
981:
971:
967:
957:
953:
943:
939:
930:
928:
919:
918:
914:
904:
900:
893:
889:
885:, April 9, 2007
878:
874:
867:
863:
856:Doe v. Keathley
853:
846:
839:Doe v. Phillips
836:
829:
822:
818:
810:
806:
805:
801:
789:
785:
784:
780:
772:
768:
767:
763:
754:
753:
749:
741:
737:
729:
725:
720:law.cornell.edu
718:
714:
709:
697:
661:Doe v. Phillips
657:Doe v. Keathley
653:Doe v. Phillips
587:
570:
557:
532:
527:
494:
442:
430:
425:
394:
381:
350:
321:
320:
290:
289:Reform activism
282:
281:
263:Genarlow Wilson
242:Miracle Village
223:
215:
214:
209:
203:
195:
194:
169:
159:
151:
150:
128:
106:
101:
78:
60:
42:
27:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1024:
1022:
1014:
1013:
1008:
998:
997:
994:
993:
986:
985:External links
983:
980:
979:
965:
951:
937:
912:
898:
887:
872:
861:
844:
827:
816:
799:
778:
761:
747:
735:
723:
711:
710:
708:
705:
704:
703:
696:
693:
614:pleaded guilty
586:
583:
569:
566:
556:
553:
531:
528:
526:
523:
493:
490:
482:Stephen Breyer
441:
435:
429:
426:
424:
421:
417:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
393:
390:
380:
377:
352:
351:
349:
348:
341:
334:
326:
323:
322:
319:
318:
312:
311:
305:
304:
298:
297:
291:
288:
287:
284:
283:
280:
279:
273:
272:
266:
265:
259:
258:
252:
251:
245:
244:
238:
237:
231:
230:
224:
221:
220:
217:
216:
213:
212:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
193:
192:
186:
185:
179:
178:
160:
157:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
142:
141:
135:
134:
127:
126:
120:
119:
113:
112:
105:
104:
96:
95:
89:
88:
82:
81:
73:
72:
61:
58:
57:
54:
53:
45:
44:
38:
37:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1023:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1001:
992:
989:
988:
984:
977:
976:, No. SC90164
975:
969:
966:
963:
962:, No. SC89834
961:
955:
952:
949:
947:
941:
938:
927:on 2010-01-14
926:
922:
916:
913:
910:
908:
902:
899:
896:
891:
888:
884:
883:
876:
873:
870:
865:
862:
859:
857:
851:
849:
845:
842:
840:
834:
832:
828:
825:
820:
817:
809:
803:
800:
795:
794:www.mcdaa.org
788:
782:
779:
771:
765:
762:
757:
751:
748:
744:
743:State v. Bani
739:
736:
732:
727:
724:
721:
716:
713:
706:
702:
699:
698:
694:
692:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
668:
664:
662:
658:
654:
649:
647:
643:
638:
633:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
598:
596:
592:
591:United States
584:
582:
580:
579:Amicus Curiae
576:
567:
565:
562:
554:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:State v. Bani
529:
524:
522:
520:
515:
514:principles."
513:
509:
505:
504:Connecticut's
501:
500:
491:
489:
485:
483:
479:
475:
471:
469:
468:ex post facto
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
439:
438:Ex post facto
436:
434:
427:
422:
420:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
398:
397:
391:
389:
387:
378:
376:
374:
370:
366:
362:
360:
347:
342:
340:
335:
333:
328:
327:
325:
324:
317:
314:
313:
310:
307:
306:
303:
300:
299:
296:
293:
292:
286:
285:
278:
277:Kevin Gillson
275:
274:
271:
270:Janet Allison
268:
267:
264:
261:
260:
257:
254:
253:
250:
247:
246:
243:
240:
239:
236:
233:
232:
229:
226:
225:
222:Social issues
219:
218:
211:
206:
205:
202:Effectiveness
199:
198:
191:
188:
187:
184:
181:
180:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
164:
155:
154:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
136:
133:
130:
129:
125:
122:
121:
118:
117:Jessica's Law
115:
114:
111:
108:
107:
103:
98:
97:
94:
91:
90:
87:
84:
83:
80:
75:
74:
71:
68:
67:
65:
56:
55:
51:
47:
46:
39:
35:
31:
30:
26:
22:
973:
968:
959:
954:
945:
940:
929:. Retrieved
925:the original
915:
906:
901:
890:
880:
875:
864:
855:
838:
819:
802:
793:
781:
764:
750:
742:
738:
726:
715:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
669:
665:
660:
656:
652:
650:
634:
601:
599:
588:
571:
560:
558:
535:
533:
518:
516:
497:
495:
486:
467:
447:Smith v. Doe
445:
443:
437:
431:
418:
395:
382:
369:sex offender
357:
355:
255:
249:Pervert Park
228:Homelessness
227:
183:Smith v. Doe
175:
166:
131:
109:
69:
909:No. SC89727
655:now styled
630:Kansas City
620:entered an
484:dissented.
472:. Justices
86:Megan's Law
59:Legislation
1000:Categories
931:2012-06-13
707:References
622:injunction
460:civil laws
359:Dru Sjodin
610:convicted
440:challenge
695:See also
585:Missouri
568:Maryland
415:National
403:ZIP Code
34:a series
548:liberty
456:statute
379:Purpose
70:Federal
689:Raynor
575:RSOL's
555:Alaska
530:Hawaii
480:, and
452:Alaska
36:on the
811:(PDF)
790:(PDF)
773:(PDF)
667:law.
132:Other
110:State
687:and
685:F.R.
679:was
677:F.R.
400:Name
365:U.S.
356:The
23:and
628:in
612:or
600:In
534:In
496:In
470:law
444:In
1002::
847:^
830:^
792:.
476:,
934:.
758:.
733:.
345:e
338:t
331:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
