New Bill in Tennessee: Affecting Certain Sex Offenders and their Property

4-8-2012 Tennessee:

Not sure why I spend time reading the nonsense proposed by Lawmakers, but here is one from Tennessee, and another Lawmaker introduces the same thing; this is a wild proposal. I hope their are registrants willing to testify against this nonsense.

HB 3398 by Maggert which is supposed to do the following:

Sexual Offenders - As introduced, provides that the conveyance of real or personal property of a sexual offender used to violate a provision of the sex offender registry is subject to forfeiture if the victim was a minor. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 5.

So if a sex offender whose victim was a minor, violates any provision of the REGISTRY, today or in the future, they will subject ALL of their Real or Personal Property, to forfeiture!

UPDATE: PARAGRAPH DELETED: Lets assume such a registrant fails to sign a form, or fails to register on time, or any other miniscule technical violation of the REGISTRY. Bye bye to their HOME and all other PERSONAL PROPERTY (belongings, clothes, computers, TV, car, toaster, dog, parakeet, etc.... I wonder if they would evict registrant and any family, from their home they paid for (or are paying for), with the registrant naked!

REPLACED WITH: Having been advised of an amendment, which is not shown under amendments but was found under Summary, which says:

AMENDMENT #1 specifies that this bill applies only to violations regarding the residential and work restrictions of the registry provisions (and not to technical violations). This amendment also specifies that such property would be subject to judicial forfeiture, and clarifies that such forfeiture would apply only if the person is convicted of the violation.

So, assuming failure to register a home address on time, or, failure to timely register a change of "job address or other work restriction" (there must be a list somewhere, therefore it may be long), or "residential restrictions" like moving into a place which may violate a footage prohibition, would immediately cause a violation, and upon conviction -which is assured by the footage violation- all forfeiture mentioned above would take place. RSOs have no way to be assured, beforehand, of footage distances, this is most likely the violation to take place (registrants move frequently), and would lose everything they own. Given the bill must be read -as worded- the registrant could still lose the clothes off their back (Personal Property), there are Prosecutors that will go overboard and enjoy the harm caused.

Is this sane? Do Lawmakers ever give a second thought to what they propose?

I don't think so...

For now, have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate