OH- Sex offender challenges state database

First we have federal probation agents construing the Adam Walsh Act. Congress ONLY permitted the USAG to construe AWA, hence interpretations of federal probation officers are illegal acts.

One needs to understand how the AWA actually interacts with state laws. There is nothing in AWA (SORNA Title-I only) that is applicable DIRECTLY to state registrants, in other words state registrants are not required to follow federal SORNA because it is not applicable to state registrants. AWA including SORNA (and the Guidelines as construed by the USAG) are parameters for state legislators to follow when conforming state laws to the wishes of Congress.

Once state legislators conform state laws to AWA, then and only then must state registrants follow STATE law as enacted by the state legislature. AWA is written so that state legislators DO NOT have to follow AWA -to the letter- only substantially, and the USAG says whether a state has met the substantial requirement, if not the state loses Byrne Grant money.

If a state choses not to follow AWA (i.e., Ohio doesn't require certain persons to register, see story), then those persons do not have to register. SImply said, if one lives in OHIO then they follow what OHIO has enacted, not what a third parties (federal probation officers) believes AWA says because they do not have the authority to interpret AWA, that authority is vested ONLY to the USAG. eAdvocate

2-12-2009 Ohio:

Federal probation officers are demanding that sex offenders in Ohio register their names with a state database even if the state doesn’t require it.

A Cincinnati man challenged the practice in a federal lawsuit Wednesday, claiming it was unconstitutional and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The man, identified only as “John Doe” in the suit, was convicted of sexual battery in 1993 and completed his sentence for that crime in 1997. He currently is on federal probation for a drug offense.

The Ohio Justice & Policy Center sued on the offender’s behalf after his probation officer ordered him to place his name on Ohio’s registry of sex offenders, even though the state exempts him from the database because he served his sentence before the registry law took effect in the late 1990s.


The lawsuit says the registration requirement violates the offender’s rights and also is unconstitutional because it allows the federal government to trump a state law.

“There is no question he does not have to register under state law,” said Margie Slagle, an attorney with the Ohio Justice & Policy Center. “The feds think they can ignore Ohio’s wishes and make him register. It’s just bizarre.”

Federal officials declined comment Thursday. But a lawyer for Hamilton County Sheriff Simon Leis, who maintains the registry in Hamilton County, confirmed the county has been registering offenders at the request of federal probation officers.

“The bottom line is we have had guys showing up with an order from a probation officer saying, ‘I’m required to register,’” said Dave Stevenson, an assistant county prosecutor. “So we register them.”

He said the probation officers tell the offenders they must register under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, which compiles state sex offender databases from across the country. Each state has its own rules, however, and Ohio’s exempts many offenders who committed crimes long ago.

Stevenson said Hamilton County has opted to register those offenders even though some other Ohio counties have refused.

Slagle said few offenders – maybe a dozen or so – were required to register under orders from the probation officers. But she said the practice should end because it is illegal and costly, especially in a county struggling with budget cuts and layoffs.

“The sheriff should not be wasting tax dollars chasing down offenders that the state of Ohio does not require them to chase,” Slagle said. “It’s a waste of money.” ..News Source.. by Dan Horn