« Law - How the professions of law and medicine are changing | Main | Ind. Decisions - "High court to consider Indiana law on voter ID" »

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Ind. Decisions - "Judge rejects challenge to federal sex registry"

Bob Kasarda reports today in the NWI Times about U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert Miller Jr. decision Dec. 18, 2007 in the case of U.S. v. Marcus Dixon:

A federal judge has thrown out a local challenge to the constitutionality of a federal sex offender registry law, which claimed in part the law illegally treads on rights reserved for the states.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Robert Miller Jr. said the law, which requires sex offenders to keep their registration current no matter where they live, does not interfere with individual state's handling of offenders.

The law attempts to protect the public against offenders who may frustrate efforts to monitor them by traveling between states, he wrote.

"SORNA's (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) registration requirements acts upon the offender, not the states," according to Miller.

Valparaiso attorney Bryan Truitt, who filed the challenge on behalf of client accused of violating the law that went into effect in July 2006, believes the challenge still has merit and plans to appeal the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago and then on to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

The same issues raised in this challenge have been held up in other district courts, he said. The arguments, however, have not been ruled on by the appellate courts, which have signaled they should be the ones handling constitutional challenges, he said. * * *

Dixon was found guilty late last month of failing to register as a sex offender when he cut an electronic monitoring bracelet off his ankle and moved from South Carolina to Michigan City during May 2006. He now faces up to 10 years behind bars under SORNA, as compared to 90 days under South Carolina law and up to one year under the former federal law.

Miller's ruling also threw out the argument that Congress improperly delegated to the attorney general the power to decide how to apply the law to defendants accused of violating the requirements before they took effect.

He also rejected claims the case should be dismissed because Dixon never was made aware of the new registration requirements and that the requirements had never been adopted by either Indiana or South Carolina and it was "therefore impossible for Dixon to have registered."

Miller ruled that Dixon could have violated the law even if he never was informed it took effect.

Citing a federal ruling from Florida earlier last year, Miller wrote, "Sex offenders ... must comply with the law even when it changes suddenly and without notice, and they are well advised to periodically check for changes because they are particularly subject to regulation."

The ILB has obtained a copy of the 13-page opinion; access it here.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 6, 2008 10:41 AM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions