EFTA00726923.pdf

Page 1 LexisNexis® LEXSTAT 42 U.S.C. 16913 UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE Copyright 2010 Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group (TM) All rights reserved. ••• CURRENT THROUGH PL 111.198, APPROVED 7/2/2010 as TITLE 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 151. CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION Go to the United States Code Service Archive Directory 42 USCS§ 16916 § 16916. Periodic in person verification A sex offender shall appear in person, allow the jurisdiction to take a current photograph, and verify the information in each registry in which that offender is required to be registered not less frequently than-- (1) each year, if the offender is a tier I sex offender; (2) every 6 months, if the offender is a tier II sex offender; and (3) every 3 months, if the offender is a tier III sex offender. HISTORY: (July 27, 2006, P.L. 109-248, Title I, Subtitle A, § 116, 120 Stat. 595.) NOTES: Research Guide: Annotations: Validity, Construction, and Application of Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 US.CA. §§ 16901 et seq. [42 USCS§§ 16901 et seq.], its Enforcement Provision, 18 US.C.A § 2250 [18 USCS§ 2250], and Associated Regulations. 30 ALR Fed 2d 213. Interpretive Notes and Decisions: Defendant's ex post facto challenge to registration requirements of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 USCS §§ 16901 et seq., lacked merit because statute was civil in nature; individual provisions of SORNA, except for 18 USCS § 2250, were devoted to procedural issues; although SORNA required sex offenders to provide detailed personal information and appear in person so that jurisdiction could take current photograph and verify their information, 42 USCS§§ 16914, 16916, there was insufficient evidence to transform SORNA from civil scheme into criminal penalty. United States v Mason (2007, MD Fla) 510 F Supp 2d 923 (criticized in United States v Mario (2007, ED Mo) 2007 US Dist LEXIS 54330) and (criticized in United States v Cole (2007, SD 111) 2007 US Dist LEXIS EFTA00726923  Page 2 42 USCS § 16916 68522) and (criticized in United States v Gill (2007, DC Utah) 520 F Supp 2d 1341) and (criticized in United States v Manila (2007, WD La) 2007 US Dist LEM 96018) and (criticized in United States v Howell (2008, ND Iowa) 2008 US Dist LENS 7810). EFTA00726924