| ALABAMA | | | | |
| ALASKA | | | Alaska has not submitted any SORNA legislation and has just recently appointed an AG in the Department of Law to analyze the situation and make recommendations regarding whether or not (and how) Alaska will implement. Awaiting the SORNA final guidelines before drafting legislation. | Roseanne Munafo, LPACriminal Justice PlannerOffender ProgramsAlaska Department of CorrectionsPh: (907) 269-7416Fax: (907) 269-7421 |
| ARKANSAS | | | | |
| ARIZONA | SB 1628 (passed April, 2007) | | Requires youth sex offenders to only be placed in treatment programs of similar age and developmental maturity level; requires a court hearing for any youth prosecuted as an adult to determine if youth should be transferred to juvenile court.; allows for an annual probation review hearing for youth sex offenders under age 22 who are in the adult system; allows transferred youth to be removed from the registry. | |
| CALIFORNIA | | | Considering what the costs will be. No legislation yet. | |
| COLORADO | | | A compliance committee made up of all the stakeholders is currently studying what it would take to implement AWA in CO. Doing a cost-benefit analysis of implementation and then will make recommendations to the Governor's office and legislature. There has been no legislation run or passed as of yet and we don't anticipate any in 2008. | Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky
Program Director
Office of Domestic Violence & Sex Offender Management
Colorado Dept of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80215-5865
Voice: 303-239-4447
Fax: 303-239-4491 |
| CONNECTICUT | | | | |
| DELAWARE | SB 60 | | Passed compliance legislation. Wholly adopted SORNA provisions. | |
| WASHINGTONDC | | | | |
| FLORIDA | SB 1604 HB 665 | | Mostly adopts provisions of the SORNA, but not retroactive prior to July 1, 2007. | |
| GEORGIA | | | So busy with their state residence restriction and other bills that they haven’t addressed the SORNA yet. | Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D.Highland Institute |
| HAWAI’I | | | Will be addressing SORNA but not the juvenile piece. State supreme court decision in HI prevents the inclusion of JSOs on the SO registry. | |
| IDAHO | | | | |
| ILLINOIS | | | SB 121 passed in 2007 which challenges juvenile provisions of the SORNA: allows juveniles to petition to be removed from registry after a full hearing, 2 years for misdemeanor offense; 5 years for a felony offense | |
| INDIANA | | | | |
| IOWA | | | | |
| KANSAS | | | Working on substantial legislative changes to become compliant with SORNA. Interested in achieving substantial compliance this year. Will implement nearly all of it but some problems with JSO piece. Kansas will exceed SORNA’s registration requirements by having all sex offenses except for sexual battery register for life. Sexual battery will require a 15-year registration. | Erik D. WoodSection ChiefLicensing, Registration, and Missing PersonsKansas Bureau of Investigation(785) 296-8200 |
| KENTUCKY | | | | |
| LOUISIANA | HB 970 R.S. 15:540 et seq | Yes; not in compliance. | SMART Office responded. LA not in compliance. SMART Office says the state has to change state codes regarding sexual assault to be in compliance. Also said tiering has to be fact-based rather than based on elements of the state offense. Also said LA not in compliance vis a vis tribal nations. Supreme Court ruled that retroactivity did not violate expo facto. United States Supreme Court is set for Argument on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 regarding Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana a Jefferson Parrish sex offender on death row. | Emma DeVillierAssistant Attorney General LA State Attorney General’s OfficeCriminal DivisionP.O. Box 94005Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9005Telephone: 225-326-6284 |
| MAINE | | | Waiting to see if a substantial number of states don’t comply. | |
| MARYLAND | | | January 2008 - proposed legislation (SB 24 – Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Task Force)to examine the need for a committee to be appointed to deal with AWA/SORNA implementation. As of 1/9/08 – bill is in First Reading - Judicial Proceedings. | Kevin Wade |
| MASSACHUSETTS | | | MA Executive Office of Public Safety is (EOPS) is the lead agency for compliance with AWA; they have not decided on their strategy yet, but are leaning towards compliance. The MA District Attorney Association did a comprehensive opinion on what parts of the AWA violate the State's constitution and issued a paper on this ( e.g., retroactivity, immediate notification without adequate due process, etc.). No forward movement yet at the legislative side (that we know of). MATSA and MASOC very involved in trying to influence the outcome. And have issued a position paper asking to forgo the Byrne Grant funds because AWA does NOT make our communities safer. And if move forward the recommendation is to remove juveniles from AWA and add in a number of safety components that will actually work. Several state constitutional issues have been identified as counter to the provisions of the SORNA, including the right of sex offenders to a due process hearing to determine risk level. | Joan Tabachnick
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| MICHIGAN | | | | |
| MINNESOTA | | | Minnesota is awaiting publication of the final guidelines and needs to better analyze the cost of implementation; currently considering how implementation would affect current sex offender registration system. There are no plans at this time to introduce AWA-related legislation in the 2008 session. | Harry KennedyMinnesota State Sex Offender Policy Coordinator1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200St. Paul, MN 55108-5219651-361-7232
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| MISSISSIPPI | HB 1015 | | Passed SORNA compliance bill but it does not address retroactivity, nor is it in compliance as far as the requirements re: juveniles. | |
| MISSOURI | | | Stalling. Don’t think they can do the juvenile piece, esp. the 12 y.o. piece. | |
| MONTANA | SB 156 | | SB 156 passed in early 2007 addresses some aspects of the SORNA compliance, but not all. Montana legislature meets for only 90 days every two years. Next legislative session is just before the July 2009 substantial compliance date. No SORNA-specific legislation has been drafted yet. | Andy Hudak
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| NEBRASKA | LB 957 | | Compliance legislation proposed late January 2008 but not yet passed. | |
| NEVADA | AB 579 | As of Feb. 3, 2007 Nevada has not submitted their compliance package to the SMART Office. | AB 579 was passed May 31, 2007, enrolled on June 1, 2007, approved by governor on June 13, 2007, and codified in Chapter 485 of the NRS on June 14, 2007. Becomes effective July 1, 2008. NV appears to be closest to substantial compliance of all the states that have passed compliance legislation. | Diane McCord |
| NEW HAMPHIRE | | | Legislative subcommittee studying the AWA and trying to figure out how to bring NH into compliance; there have been a number of subcommittee hearings. Their recommendations will then be brought to the whole committee and will be presented during the upcoming legislative session. Not clear what their final recommendations to the wider committee will be, although they are being very conservative and have adopted almost everything as is or with stricter guidelines since some of these came out of the NH Sexual Predator Law that took effect last January (2007). | Kimberly Marsh - MSWPresident - NH ATSA
Director of Sexual Offender Treatment
NH Department of Corrections NH State Prison
603-271-7361 |
| NEW JERSEY | | | | |
| NEW MEXICO | | | Taking a wait-and-see approach. NM will not attempt to pass AWA legislation until January, 2009. Uncomfortable with the juveniles and retroactivity provisions of the Proposed Guidelines and have provided letters to DOJ on two occasions complaining about this. Otherwise, NM appears to already by approximately 80% compliant. Many NM state officials are adamantly opposed to the juvenile provisions. Will be difficult for legislature to enact legislation providing for substantial compliance if DOJ maintains its strict reading of AWA. | Randall Cherry
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| NEW YORK | | | Has not yet determined whether it will comply with the AWA requirements. Still awaiting the publishing of the final guidelines by the federal SMART Office. NY may have problems with compliance vis a vis juveniles since their records are expunged. Concerned with the cost of implementation. | Natasha Harvin, Snr. AttorneyNYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Sex Offender Management
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| NORTHCAROLINA | | | HB 1698 - Conform to Adam Walsh Act -- introduced in April 2007 covered some but not all of AWA. In June, HB 1698 was referred to Judiciary II Committee. No action has been taken since then. No other AWA bills introduced yet. 2008 session of the 2007 General Assembly (the “short session”) convenes at noon on May 13, 2008. | Attorney Jill Rosenblum |
| NORTH DAKOTA | | | | |
| OHIO | SB 10 | Not yet. | Implemented SORNA compliance legislation as of 1/1/08. Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of retroactive application of original SORN law, saying that SO classification is remedial, not punitive. State AG and legislators relied exclusively on that case to dispute constitutional claims. Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to recommend against retroactive application (but didn’t testify). SB 10 is retroactive, but not “super retroactive”. SB 10 was amended to greatly limit the juveniles who will appear on the Internet registry. Only juveniles transferred to adult court or designated “serious youthful offenders”. It includes only 2–3% of juvenile sex offenders in DYS. In Oct. 2007, direct action filed in Ohio Supreme Court. Challenge retroactive application of SB 10: violates separation of powers, ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy. The case ultimately dismissed. Ohio AG sent reclassification letters to 35,000 people at a cost of $500,000 dollars. More than 50% of the reclassified sex offender have filed suit. If Ohio had chosen not to comply they would have lost $260,000 dollars in Byrne Fund Grants. Thousands of challenge petitions filed in county common pleas and juvenile courts across the state. Stark County (Canton) judges are first to hold mass hearing, issue county-wide stay. At least 8 other counties have since issued similar injunctions. In 2007, a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, challenging procedural due process issues. Federal Order filed Feb. 6, extending 60-day period to challenge reclassification, staying community notification for those affected by SB 10 retroactively On 4/1/08 rules regarding compliance with 2950.16 – certification of juvenile sex offender and/or child-victim offender treatment programs were filed. Specifically:5139-69-01 Creation of a juvenile sex offender treatment program certification advisory board5139-69-02 Initial certification of juvenile sex offender and child-victim offender programs 5139-69-03 Juvenile sex offender and child-victim offender treatment standards. | Kim KehlAssistant to the Deputy Director,Parole and Community Services at the Ohio Dept. of Youth Services(614)644-6540
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| OKLAHOMA | HB 1760 passed May 2007. Went into effect as of November 1, 2007. | Submitted compliance package to the SMART Office. Determined by SMART that OK did not achieve substantial compliance with this law. | The Oklahoma legislature is alsocurrently considering HB 3159 to achieve further compliance. Under HB 1760 5,500 SOs were reclassified and almost 80% of them have been reclassified as Tier III offenders. No lawsuits by reclassified SOs have yet been filed though there has been some talk of this happening. | Jim Rabon, Administrator
Sentence Administration and Offender Records Unit
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
3400 M. L. King Ave., PO Box 11400
Oklahoma City, OK 73136-0400
Phone: 405-425-2615
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| OREGON | | | Earliest legislative session to address SORNA will be Jan 2009; right now looking at the financial impact of implementing the SORNA; legislative concepts are not due from state agencies until later in 2008 | Vi Beaty, ManagerOregon Sex Offender RegistryOregon State PoliceCriminal Investigations Div.(503) 934-0176 |
| PENNSYLVANIA | | | PA has introduced a SORNA compliance-related bill, SB 1130, but it doesn’t address much of what needs to be addressed to come into compliance. | Lauren TaylorPA Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
1101 S Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17104
Phone: (717) 787-5430
Fax: (717) 787-5430
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| RHODE ISLAND | | | | |
| SOUTHCAROLINA | | | | |
| SOUTH DAKOTA | | | | |
| TENNESSEE | | | | |
| TEXAS | | | Will not address the SORNA until the Jan 2009 session. Had a bill in the 2007 session of the legislature that would have brought TX into partial compliance. | Allison TaylorTexas Council on Sex Offender Tx
1100 W. 49th St. Austin, TX 78756
(512) 834-4530
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
| UTAH | | | No compliance attempt will be made during the 2008 legislative session. Though making statutory change in 2008. – Jim Ingle Will submit our version of SORNA to the legislature this session keeping the good policy aspects and leaving out the bad. – Scott Carver HB 492 is a sex offender bill introduced this session that addresses some of the SORNA requirements, but contravenes others, e.g. requires SOs to report changes of residence, work, education institution,vehicle, and other information within three business days rather than five days; but requires SOs to register every six months, rather than every year as is currently required by the UT registry | Jim IngleUtah Department of Corrections14717 S. Minuteman DriveDraper, UT 84020(801) 495-7706
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Scott CarverDirectorUtah Sentencing Commission801-538-1645Utah State Capitol ComplexEast Office Building, Suite E330P.O. Box 142330Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330 |
| VERMONT | | | | |
| VIRGINIA | | | | |
| WASHINGTON | | | Legislature currently in session. I’m not aware of efforts to come into compliance with Adam Walsh at this point. One of our government offices has completed a cost breakdown of what it would take to comply vs. the loss of the funding, that report has not been released to my knowledge. - Kecia | Kecia RongenProgram AdministratorJuvenile Rehabilitation AdministrationPO Box 45720Olympia, WA 98504(360) 902-7952
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Jean Soliz ConklinExecutive Director WA State Sentencing Commission4565 7th Ave. SE, 2nd Fl. Olympia, WA 98504(360) 407-1050
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Toby Shulruff |
| WEST VIRGINIA | | | | |
| WISCONSIN | | | | |
| WYOMING | | | | |
