OH- New Strike Against Unregistered Sex Offenders

Another case that needs to be appealed as there are several issues which have been glossed over in this decision. i.e. Trent was not notified of the new FEDERAL requirements, which Congress mandated that the U.S. Attorney General do (Sec 117), and which the USAG has not done. Congress mandated that it be done through each state's registration system, therefore, if a state has not implemented AWA how could those registrants know of its requirements. Further, since the USAG has not issued regulations as to cases like these, a real question of whether a retroactive application is permissible or a ex post facto violation.

7-30-2008 Ohio:

DAYTON, Ohio -- A United States District Court Judge in Dayton has upheld the constitutionality of the 2006 federal law used to punish sex offenders who fail to register.

Gregory Lockhart, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and James Wahlrab, United States Marshall, annouced the ruling handed down by Judge Walter Rice July 24th.

Congress passed the Sexual Offender Registration and Notification Act as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006. The law requires anyone convicted of sex crimes under federal law, or anyone convicted in state court and traveling in interstate commerce, to register with law enforcement agencies where they live, work, or are a student.

Any person required to register and fails, is subject to a fine up up to $250,000 and up to ten years in prison.

Judge Rice's ruling is in response to a motion filed by Roger Dale Trent. A federal grand jury indicted Trent in December of 2007, charging him with failing to register as a sex offender, when he moved from Indiana to Darke County. Trent was convicted of a sex crime in Indiana in May of 2007.

Trent asked the court to dismiss the indictment, claiming that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. He also said that the law should not apply to him since he hadn't been notified of it, and the crime occurred before Ohio passed a sex offender notification law.

-The U.S. Supreme court in Lambert -v- California held that it is a due process violation if a state fails to notify a person of their duty to register, that has been violated here.

Judge Rice rejected all of Trent's arguments saying that SORNA is "a valid regulation of the uses of the channels of interstate commerce." Judge Rice also ruled that the federal guidelines governing the application of SORNA allow for the law to be applied even in states which have not yet approved their own registration programs.

-This is questionable since guidelines have no force of law.

"The ruling adds to the growing number of court decisions that SORNA is a legal and useful way to protect communities from sexual criminals who travel from place to place without notifying those communities of their presence," Lockhart said. "We will continue to work closely with the Marshals Service and local law enforcment agencies to bring to justice any who violate the law." ..News Source.. by WHIOTV.com