“Time Served” on Another State’s Sex Offender Registry

linkedin
Share on Google+
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Download PDF

North Carolina requires certain people to register as sex offenders in North Carolina for crimes committed in other states. But what if a person has completed his or her term of registration in another state before moving here? Can North Carolina require the person to register again?

The definition of “reportable conviction”—which is to say, convictions that require sex offender registration—includes two types of convictions from other states. First, there are out-of-state crimes that are substantially similar to North Carolina crimes that require registration. Second, there are crimes that require registration under the sex offender registration statutes of another state. G.S. 14-208.6(4)b. The second category was added in 2006, to address the possibility that a person could evade their registration requirement by moving to North Carolina if he or she were on another state’s registry for a crime that was not substantially similar to any crime requiring registration here.

We know that time spent on another state’s registry does not generally count toward the time an offender must spend on the registry here before he or she is eligible to petition for removal. In In re Borden, 216 N.C. App. 579 (2011) (discussed here), the court of appeals read the words “initial county registration” in G.S. 14-208.12A to refer to a person’s initial registration in a county in North Carolina, not to a county in any jurisdiction (in Mr. Borden’s case, Kentucky). Thus, the time he spent on Kentucky’s registry did not count toward the 10-year period that needed to transpire before the trial court could grant his petition for removal from the registry.

I suppose that’s clear enough for purposes of the back-end petition-for-removal statute. But suppose Mr. Borden had been on Kentucky’s registry for so long that he was removed from it before he moved to North Carolina. Would he need to re-register with the local sheriff upon his arrival here?

There’s no clear answer in the statutes or case law. I think it may depend on the basis for the reportability of the out-of-state conviction.

If the out-of-state offense were reportable here based on its substantial similarity to a North Carolina crime, I think he may need to re-register. A reportable conviction is a reportable conviction, and there is no provision in our law exempting the person from registration based on service of a full registration period in another state.

If, however, the person’s out-of-state crime were reportable not based on substantial similarity to a North Carolina crime, but rather based on the fact that the offense “requires registration” in the other state, it seems likely that he would not have to register here if the requirement to register had ended in the other state. At the risk of stating the obvious, once the requirement to register ends in the other state, that state no longer “requires registration” for the offense, and it is therefore not reportable here within the language of G.S. 14-208.6(4)b. I suppose you could read “offense that requires registration” to refer to an offense that generally requires registration in the other state, not to whether this particular defendant still has to register for it there. But to read it that way would, to some degree, untether the provision from its intended purpose, which was to prevent offenders from avoiding their registration requirement by moving to North Carolina. If the person no longer has to register for an offense in another state, there’s nothing left to avoid by moving here.

Even if re-registration may sometimes be required as a matter of statute, you could imagine several constitutional objections. Surveying the case law, the most common argument appears to be that re-registration violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Courts have generally rejected that argument. In Crofoot v. Harris, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), for example, a defendant was convicted of a crime in Washington that required 10 years of registration there. After 10 years, a court in Washington issued an order terminating his registration. He moved to California, which required lifetime registration for offenses like his, and which made him register for life. The appellate court rejected his argument that California’s lifetime registration requirement violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause by failing to give effect to the Washington order. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not, the court concluded, “require one state to substitute for its own statute, applicable to persons and events within it, the conflicting statute of another state.” Id. at 51. Nevada’s supreme court reached a similar conclusion in Donlan v. State, 249 P.3d 1231 (Nev. 2011). In that case Nevada required a new resident to register even though California had previously terminated his registration requirement. As in Crofoot, the court rejected the registrant’s full faith and credit argument, holding that the “Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nevada to dispense with its preferred mechanism for protecting its citizenry by virtue of termination of the duty to register in another state.”

We did not find any cases where a defendant successfully argued that re-registration in another state was unconstitutional.

As a practical matter, if a defendant has completed registration in another state before moving to North Carolina, he may be able to relocate here without coming to the attention of the local sheriff. If registration in the other state has ended, the defendant will no longer be required to give the sheriff there notice of his intent to move, and there will therefore be no notice to the receiving sheriff of the person’s pending arrival. Nevertheless, a former registrant in another state may wish to consult legal counsel before relocating to North Carolina to determine how the sheriff and district attorney in the county of intended residence view the issue.

My colleague Christopher Tyner provided helpful research assistance for this post.

3 comments on ““Time Served” on Another State’s Sex Offender Registry

  1. “Nevertheless, a former registrant in another state may wish to consult legal counsel before relocating to North Carolina to determine how the sheriff and district attorney in the county of intended residence view the issue.”

    And when this person contacts me I am supposed to tell them what? According to you, if it is a similar offense, then they will be required to re-register. If it is not a similar offense and they have not finished their registration period, then they will be required to re-register. If it is not a similar offense and they have finished their registration period, then they might have to re-register, or they can risk not registering and see what happens? I mean, I could contact the sheriff, and the DA, but their informal opinions are not likely to insulate my anonymous client. Can the client argue “advice of counsel”?

  2. Once the question of “punitive” vs. civil regulatory becomes clear, only then can judges rule sensibly. When the law is correctly deemed punitive then it’s obvious to see that California has no retroactive say over a crime committed in another state. What if i murdered someone and got 5 years in WA, but California requires a minimum sentence of 10. Do i then go to jail for 5 more years once i move to Cali? of course not! Even the federal Adam Walsh Act requires a person to register in another state only if he is required to register in his home state. Once the guy completed all requirements in Washington and was removed entirely from that state’s registry, he’s totally done and free and no longer has to register in any state.

  3. I think this whole registry thing needs redone by people that can see both sides people make mistakes and some are terrible but we all can change and can be forgiven but we won’t forget people who have served there time should be able to move on with there life not move on to another state and have to relive what they done wrong some people learn from there mistakes and for the ones that don’t then they should have to be punished to the full extent of the law . Laws are to protect and keep the world working it won’t be perfect all the time we’re all humans . And we were born to mess up and learn from them mess ups. But I know I’m just one individual that is married to someone that is dealing with this he was convicted of sexual misconduct with a minor in 1998 his judge didn’t order no special stimulations he was released from probation for serving time in prison but he also had a charge that was totally different well his parole officer decided that he was gonna pick the charge and and put his other crime aside and make him register for 10 years he wasn’t suppose to have to register but his parole officer made the decision that he had to and I’n 1998 the sexual misconduct with a minor code was repealed his charge was a class c therefore by law he wasn’t required to register but I guess his parole officer Thought he was above the law but anyways we ended up moving to South Carolina big mistake not knowing it was a lifetime registry when we got there they told us if we can provide paperwork from Indiana saying when his End date was that they would go ahead and go by Indiana’s rules but they lied after 5 years we moved to Florida another mistake because they said the same thing as sc in this time my husband was released from the registry in indiana and Florida is going with sc this bs both states are allowed to lie and not only that he wasn’t requiered to register by law or by the judge and no lawyer has any idea what to do to get him released they say they have never seen a case like this all I know is this world is fudged up with laws that saids one thing but means another

Leave a Reply

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