Is Ohio "In Compliance" According to the Adam Walsh Act?

6-5-2010 Ohio:

Well the latest Ohio Supreme court decision ( State -v- Bodyke ) may have thrown a monkey wrench into Ohio's ability to dodge being docked 10% of their Federal Byrne Grant funding. However, the Adam Walsh Act has some interesting verbiage on "compliance" where a State's highest court is concerned. See:

SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—For any fiscal year after the end of the period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement this title shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).

(b) STATE CONSTITUTIONALITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—When evaluating whether a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title, the Attorney General shall consider whether the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a demonstrated inability to implement certain provisions that would place the jurisdiction in violation of its constitution, as determined by a ruling of the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(2) EFFORTS.—If the circumstances arise under paragraph (1), then the Attorney General and the jurisdiction shall make good faith efforts to accomplish substantial implementation of this title and to reconcile any conflicts between this title and the jurisdiction’s constitution. In considering whether compliance with the requirements of this title would likely violate the jurisdiction’s constitution or an interpretation thereof by the jurisdiction’s highest court, the Attorney General shall consult with the chief executive and chief legal officer of the jurisdiction concerning the jurisdiction’s interpretation of the jurisdiction’s constitution and rulings thereon by the jurisdiction’s highest court.

(3) ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURES.—If the jurisdiction is unable to substantially implement this title because of a limitation imposed by the jurisdiction’s constitution, the Attorney General may determine that the jurisdiction is in compliance with this Act if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act.

(4) FUNDING REDUCTION.—If a jurisdiction does not comply with paragraph (3), then the jurisdiction shall be subject to a funding reduction as specified in subsection (a).

Ohio AG: In response to the court’s decision in the case of State v. Bodyke, Attorney General Richard Cordray released the following statement:

“We are digesting the Supreme Court’s decision, which appears to be limited in scope. The broad provisions of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act remain in place. In striking down a narrow portion of the act, the court has reinstated the classifications and community notification and registration orders imposed by judges under prior state law for certain offenders who had been sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008,” said Cordray. “Offenders who were classified on or after Jan. 1, 2008 are unaffected by today’s ruling. Those 26,000 offenders who had been reclassified under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act will now revert to their prior classifications before the act was passed. To comply with the court’s order, my office will work to reclassify these offenders through Ohio’s Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification database (eSORN) and will notify offenders of their new classification. We will also continue to support local law enforcement agencies as they work to provide families with the information they need to keep their children safe.”

Its what he doesn't say that tells us what he is really doing. AWA tells him this " if the jurisdiction has made, or is in the process of implementing reasonable alternative procedures or accommodations, which are consistent with the purposes of this Act." So reality is, he is working with the SMART Office conjuring up something, an alternative procedure!

Folks thats what he is doing, conjuring up some way to assure that Ohio doesn't lose that funding. Changing settings on the public registry, well thats being handled by some programmer.

So the AG is asking himself, -an alternative procedure- "How can I reclassify, or make it look like those convicted before 1-1-2008 have been reclassified," to prevent money from going out the window?

Any bets on what he comes up with? My guess is, it will somehow be punitive. But, in the meantime, is Ohio in-compliance?

eAdvocate