The SORNA-Compliance Dog That Didn’t Bark

Back in April I wrote this post about a pending bill (H 772) that was intended to bring North Carolina into compliance with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

In its initial form, it appeared the bill would have done all the things North Carolina needed to do (and then some, perhaps) to substantially implement SORNA—increase registration periods for certain offenders, require registrants to provide some additional information to the sheriff (like their passport number and a description of their car, for example), and treat certain serious juvenile adjudications like convictions for registration purposes.

The bill moved along for a couple months, but after an early June committee meeting in the House of Representatives it was gutted and replaced with a new edition establishing a joint legislative committee to study and report on what legislative changes are truly necessary under SORNA. The committee would have been charged with weighing the costs to State and local agencies of implementing those changes against the potential loss in federal grant funding if the changes were not made. (A 2009 report on that issue by the non-profit Justice Policy Institute, an organization whose mission is to “reduce the use of incarceration and the justice system,” suggested North Carolina’s $14 million compliance tab would far exceed lost grant money of less than $1 million.) But even that new edition of the bill never made it through the Senate. It was still in committee when they adjourned, and it’s not one of the items listed in their adjournment resolution for consideration when they reconvene in July.

We are not the only state that decided to defer action on SORNA until a more complete accounting can be made of the relative costs—both monetarily and in terms of public safety—of compliance and non-compliance. According to media reports linked here, fewer than 10 states have actually complied.

An unresolved question is what effect the General Assembly’s decision not to amend our laws has on petitions to terminate registration in light of G.S. 14-208.12A (an issue I wrote about here, back in 2009). That’s the provision that says a court may grant a petitioner’s request to come off the registry after 10 years if, among other things, the “requested relief complies with the provisions of the federal Jacob Wetterling Act, as amended, and any other federal standards applicable to the termination of a registration requirement or required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds by the State . . . .” To the extent that SORNA-compliant registration periods would go beyond 10 years (and for many registrants they would), this existing North Carolina law might—in a roundabout way—give some effect to SORNA, notwithstanding the General Assembly’s decision not to act this year. I had generally advised people that this thorny issue arguably could be deferred until July 27, 2011, as SORNA rules are not technically “required to be met as a condition for the receipt of federal funds” until then. But I think that argument gets harder to make once the compliance date passes.

I suppose I shouldn’t spend all my time talking about legislation that didn’t pass. Some bills related to sex offender registration have already been signed by the Governor. Under S.L. 2011-37 (H 59), registered offenders are no longer eligible for emergency medical service credentials.  And S.L. 2011-61 (H 219) creates new rules designed to track name changes by people required to register. That law also makes changes to the termination petition statute described above. Under current law, the proper venue for those petitions is the superior court in the district where the registrant resides. Effective for petitions filed on or after December 1, 2011, the law amends G.S. 14-208.12A(a) to provide that for persons required to register for an offense that occurred in North Carolina, the petition is to be filed in the district where the person was convicted of the offense. If the reportable conviction is for an offense that occurred in another state, the petition is to be filed in the district where the person resides.

8 thoughts on “The SORNA-Compliance Dog That Didn’t Bark”

  1. The SORNA study in HB 772 was rolled into the omnibus study bill, HB 773. (See Part LIV of HB 773, Third Edition.) Because conferees for HB 773 were *not* appointed by the Senate, it does not appear that HB 773 is eligible for consideration during the limited session beginning July 13. See Res. 2011-9, § 2(5a) (“Adoption of conference reports for bills which were in conference as of Saturday, June 18, 2011 and conferees had been appointed by *both* houses as of that date.”) (emphasis added). So, the omnibus study bill may have to wait until the 2012 short session.

    • To Bureaucrat: I am new to North Carolina and would like to find out how to track what happens to H772 (H773) in the NC General Assembly. How can I find out the current status of various committees and bills? Can you email me to let me know? Thanks.

  2. I was convicted of indecent liberties with a student in July 2008. I received 30 months probation. This was not a registerable offense at the time. In Dec 2008, it began a registerable offense. In dec 2010, I violated my probation and was sentenced to 6-8 months DOC. When I was released, the state informed me that I now had to register. Is this not double jeopardy? Do I have any legal ground to fight this? Why do I have to register If my conviction happened before it became a registerable offense?

    • No. This is not ‘Double Jeopardy.” Double Jeopardy refers to the inability to be prosecuted for a crime more than one time. Your prosecution and sentence had been completed. Since then, the laws have substantiated the need for and requirement of protecting children from sex offenders through registration requirements.

  3. The Court over and over again has that registration is not punitive (ain’t that funny?) and, as such, doesn’t create any problems for double jeapardy, etc. In fact, the gov’t could probably, using the same rationale, require everyone ever convicted of any felony to register and create the same unworkably absurd conditions they require for sex offenders and put people in prison for putting a toe out of line…

    Meanwhile, as a registered offender, any misstep is a class F felony. That’s right. Fail to change your address in 3 days (or become homeless and fail to check in every 3 days), and you will get convicted of a class F felony–the same felony class as burning a public building, taking a hostage by a prisoner, or causing serious injury to a police office (WTF!)

    Jame: write your legislator. Every day. Tell him to stop making you the punching bag de jour.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.