State, tribes don’t comply

7-11-2009 National:

Sex Offender Registry deadline pushed back

States and tribal nations are finding it difficult to comply with a federal law that created a database to categorize and monitor sex offenders and post offender information online. According to a representative of the U.S. Marshals Service, the failure of law enforcement to comply will result in a 10 percent loss in funding.

U.S. Attorney Eric Holder extended the compliance deadline from July 27 this year to July 2010 in response to pressure from lawmakers, law enforcement and related personnel regarding the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

Further, a pronounced rift in the enforcement between U.S. and various Indian nations may occur.

The Washington Post reported that in accordance to guidelines created by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, enacted by former President George W. Bush, states and other jurisdictions must feed information into a national Internet database about where the nation's estimated 674,000 registered sex offenders live and work. A jurisdiction that fails to do so faces the mandatory 10 percent of its Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, which supports crime control and prevention and funds victim programs as well as public defenders.

Like other U.S. states, Oklahoma is not compliant, said U. S. Marshal and Coordinator Marc K. Crawford of the Marshals Service Sex Offender Investigations for the western district of Oklahoma.

“Oklahoma is known as a checkerboard state with its tribal lands. It’s created a huge difficulty to enforce,” said Crawford.

“In 2006, every state, tribe and territory was given three years to come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act or to be punished by a 10 percent reduction in Byrne federal law enforcement grant funding,” said Lawana Hamrick, coordinator of the Sex and Violence Offender registry for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

While boundaries have hampered participation, so have issues of sovereignty.

“Everyone I spoke to is officially going to opt in ... [meaning] no tribe has officially said we want to come to an agreement with the state,” said Hamrick. “We have offered assistance to everyone but most have decided to make their own registries.”

Without the participation of Indian tribes, offenders currently on the Oklahoma registry may be removed if they are determined to be in the jurisdictional area of Indian law enforcement, Hamrick said.

According to Hamrick, only the Kickapoo nation already has its own registry in place.

James Leclair, Sex Offender Registry Act project coordinator for the Tonkawa Tribe, said, “The tribe will do its own list and then we will register with the state and Federal Bureau of Investigation on the national offender registry list.”

The tribe has also been in discussion with the Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement services, he said. According to Leclair, there is not yet any memo of understanding with U.S. law enforcement to handle otherwise.

“The perspective is to get sex offenders registered but those on tribal land don’t want to register. We are getting registered through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and working with U.S. Department of Justice division Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking,” said Leclair.

“We have paperwork to track offenders,” Leclair said. “It will be really nice to digitize everything on our own Web site.”

Leclair said he expects online technical delays to be resolved within the next few months.

“We have met with state and county officials to work together against and track offenders. I think it’s a great thing for the tribe.”

Of concern to Hamrick and Leclair is the fluidity of offenders.

“These are people who don’t stay in one place. Bottom line, it comes down to whether or not law enforcement has jurisdiction to enforce,” Hamrick said.

“There are people out here moving into our location who we don’t know about. People like to jump from tribe to tribe. Participating will help tribes notify each other and I think that is a great thing especially if they live on one trustland and are working for another tribe. That tribe needs to know,” Leclair said.

The issues are not without desire to resolve.

“It is a big challenge to work with tribal elders to determine if they will have their own sex offender registry or allow Oklahoma to be their repository,” said Crawford.

The next meeting with various tribes is expected to take place July 22. Additional meetings in Tulsa are slated for August, Crawford said.

Should individual tribal nations decide not to participate, “The challenge will be to develop and ensure compliance, build a database and notify law enforcement when individuals on the registry are out of compliance,” said Crawford.

“As we get closer to deadline, they will see they are not losing their sovereignty,” said Crawford.

However, unadulterated sovereignty remains an issue for some.

“You would want to be in compliance but you don’t want any sovereignty taken away,” said Tresa Gouge-Morris, tribal court administrator for the Seminole Tribe in Wewoka.

“If they take something, something else will follow down the line. Like language and the English only law. They said it would not be brought back out but they did - that happened this past session ... You tell the tribe they won’t go after anything else - it’s hard to believe. The land, the language - you have to stay on top of that.

“The Adam Walsh Act was poorly written because people did not take into consideration that tribes are different than states. They talk about reservations, not nations,” said Gouge-Morris. “There are 42 tribes in Oklahoma and that is not mentioned in new law. That it doesn’t talk about jurisdictional boundaries is the main thing.”

Congress failed to acknowledge that one house can be tribal while another might not be, she said.

“How can they make decisions with these types of boundaries?”

According to Hamrick, “I think sovereignty is definitely a factor in the decisions to make their own list.”

Creation of a tribal registry for sex offenders is new territory for the nations, she said.

For assistance, tribes can look to the S.M.A.R.T. office for assistance with compliance.

Funding may be lost if nations are non-compliant, said Gouge-Morris. “

States can come in and look at records and for people. If non-compliant, states will come in. That does not sit well. Each tribe will have its own feeling as far as jurisdiction.”

Among Indian nations, the challenge to sovereignty cleaves opinion.

“I don’t believe sovereignty was a huge issue,” said Leclair. “At one of four biggest meetings about the issue, that I wish more tribes had attended, it said you give up rights if a tribe does not register and it gave county authorities the right to come onto native land. That’s why the Tonkawa tribe has opted not to have those authorities come in. Since then we’ve found that sovereignty is not really the issue.”

Regardless of boundaries, offenders will be handled through courts and according to codes, said Leclair. ..Source.. by Monique Headley