The Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Registry is a cooperative effort between U. state agencies that host public sex offender registries and the U. 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 Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act ("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. The registry is coordinated by the United States Department of Justice 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.Not all state web sites provide for public disclosure of information about all sex-offenders who reside, work, or attend school in the state.
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.
The National Sex Offender Public Registry website supports search by: The results are limited to what each individual state may provide.
Information is hosted by each state, not by the federal government.
In two cases docketed for argument on November 13, 2003, the sex offender registries of two states, Alaska and Connecticut, would face legal challenge.
Many successful challenges to sex offender registration laws in the United States have been in Missouri because of a unique provision in the Missouri Constitution (Article I, Section 13) prohibiting laws "retrospective in [their] operation." In Doe v. Keathley filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Missouri.
In response to these rulings, in 2007, several Missouri state Senators proposed an amendment to the Missouri Constitution that would exempt sex offender registration laws from bar on retrospective civil laws. As a result, many offenders who were previously exempt under the Court's 2006 holding in Doe v. 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 law.
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. 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.
As a result, the decisions of the Missouri courts prohibiting the retrospective application of sex offender laws remained intact. 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. On February 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from residing within one thousand 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.
This was the first instance that the Supreme Court had to examine the implementation of sex offender registries in throughout the U. The ruling would let the states know how far they could go in informing citizens of perpetrators of sex crimes. 84 (2003), the Supreme Court upheld Alaska's sex-offender registration statute. 1 (2003), the Court ruled that Connecticut's sex-offender registration statute did not violate the procedural due process of those to whom it applied, although the Court "expresses no opinion as to whether the State's law violates substantive due process principles." Update: Reynolds V.
The constitutionality of the registries was challenged in two ways: In Smith v. Reasoning that sex offender registration deals with civil laws, not punishment, the Court ruled 6-3 that it is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. United States Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit No. Argued October 3, 2011—Decided January 23, 2012 "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." In State v. 2001), the Hawaii State Supreme Court held that Hawaii's sex offender registration statute violated the due process clause of the Constitution of Hawaii, ruling that it deprived potential registrants "of a protected liberty 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) actually represents a danger to society." After losing the constitutional challenge in the US Supreme Court in 2002 one of the two Doe's in the case committed suicide. § 589.426, a law restricting the activities of registered sex offenders on Halloween.
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented. The other Doe began a new challenge in the state courts.