Reading the court decision it is hard to tell if, they are saying he violated FEDERAL law or STATE law. Clearly he had notice from the state he left, to register if he moved -although that notice didn't mention a federal requirement to do so- and he did not register when he did move. The decision is not clear, so the due process issue is not yet foreclosed in every fact circumstance, just this set of facts.
11-5-2009 Alabama:
ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court has upheld an aggressive federal program aimed at tracking and monitoring sex offenders.
The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday marks the first time an appeals court in the circuit has upheld the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that aims to create a national sex offender database and creates stiff penalties for those who fail to register.
It stems from the case of William Eric Brown, who was appealing his 2008 conviction for failing to reregister as a sex offender after moving from North Carolina to Alabama. Brown had argued the new requirements were "impossible" to comply with because he never received notification about them.
The three-judge panel's ruling, however, concluded there was "no due process violation." ..Source.. by WZTV.com
November 5, 2009
AL- Fed appeal court upholds sex offender requirements
April 17, 2008
IL- Sex offender acquitted
A prosecutor who does not understand the meaning of "Due Process," guess all his other cases need to be reviewed.
4-17-2008 Illinois:
The man whose Internet use at Amboy's Pankhurst Memorial Library touched off a county-wide debate on whether to ban sex offenders from many public places walked free Wednesday after nearly four months in county lockup.
Judge Ron Jacobson acquitted Steven C. Manning, 38, of Amboy, who had been charged with violating a provision of the Sex Offender Registry Act that requires offenders to register all Internet-related addresses, such as Web logs and e-mail accounts, with local police.
The judge ruled that Manning's failure to disclose a social networking Web page wasn't his fault because police did not notify him of his responsibility to do so.
"The court understands exactly why there are sex offender laws ... and I have no quarrel with them ... but it's a struggle for me to understand why the State Police did not update their forms," Jacobson said.
The Internet provision, which took effect in August, affects 228 sex offenders in the Sauk Valley, including 57 in Lee County, 67 in Ogle and 104 in Whiteside. Manning was the first in Lee County to be charged under the new provision.
Between August and his arrest in January, Manning continued to register with Amboy law enforcement under the old requirements because no one informed local police of the changes, according to testimony from Amboy Police Sergeant Jeff Blake.
Lee County State's Attorney Paul Whitcombe, who led the prosecution, called Jacobson's opinion "outrageous" and reiterated the argument he used in court that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Manning's attorney, Public Defender Bob Thompson, pointed to a line in the act that requires the state police to notify convicted offenders of their responsibility to register. He said prosecution without notification is like having the state change the speed limit without changing the road signs.
Whitcombe disagreed.
"It's like saying, 'I didn't know I wasn't supposed to commit murder' ... If I had to prove in every case I tried that the defendant knowingly broke the law, we'd never convict anybody," Whitcombe said.
Manning's arrest was the result of a two-month investigation and provided the impetus for a controversial ordinance proposal in Amboy and Lee County that would have banned registered sexual predators from all libraries, parks, day care centers, public pools and other places where children are likely to congregate. State police consider Manning a sex offender, not a sexual predator Ñ a term that indicates the offender is likely to repeat.
Although it would have been the first of its kind in the state, the ordinance had support of some Amboy City Council members through December.
The ordinance was put on hold at the advice of city attorneys, who cited potential liabilities, and the City Council did not meet again until after Manning's arrest the following month.
Whitcombe said he isn't certain whether Manning's release will cause him to brush the dust off the proposal or not.
"Right now I'm just focused on this one issue," Whitcombe said. "Let's just hope he doesn't hurt another kid." ..more.. by SAM SMITH, gazette REPORTER
