CFC OKLAHOMA

NO link to this. This came from ATSA

AWA State by State Compliance Chart    

   

                    State State Legislation or Statute  Submitted to SMART Office?                                      Status                                                 Info Supplied By
ALABAMA         
ALASKA     Alaska has not submitted any SORNA legislation and has just recently appointed an AG in the Department of Law to analyze the situation and make recommendations regarding whether or not (and how) Alaska will implement.  Awaiting the SORNA final guidelines before drafting legislation. Roseanne Munafo, LPA
Criminal Justice Planner

Offender Programs

Alaska Department of Corrections

Ph: (907) 269-7416

Fax: (907) 269-7421
 
ARKANSAS         
ARIZONA SB 1628 (passed April, 2007)   Requires youth sex offenders to only be placed in treatment programs of similar age and developmental maturity level; requires a court hearing for any youth prosecuted as an adult to determine if youth should be transferred to juvenile court.; allows for an annual probation review hearing for youth sex offenders under age 22 who are in the adult system; allows transferred youth to be removed from the registry.   
CALIFORNIA     Considering what the costs will be. No legislation yet.   
COLORADO     A compliance committee made up of all the stakeholders is currently studying what it would take to implement AWA in CO. Doing a cost-benefit analysis of implementation and then will make recommendations to the Governor's office and legislature. There has been no legislation run or passed as of yet and we don't anticipate any in 2008.   Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky
Program Director
Office of Domestic Violence & Sex Offender Management
Colorado Dept of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80215-5865
Voice: 303-239-4447
Fax: 303-239-4491
CONNECTICUT         
DELAWARE SB 60   Passed compliance legislation. Wholly adopted SORNA provisions.   
WASHINGTON
DC
         
FLORIDA SB 1604
HB 665
   Mostly adopts provisions of the SORNA, but not retroactive prior to July 1, 2007.   
GEORGIA     So busy with their state residence restriction and other bills that they haven’t addressed the SORNA yet. Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D.
Highland Institute

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
HAWAI’I     Will be addressing SORNA but not the juvenile piece. State supreme court decision in HI prevents the inclusion of JSOs on the SO registry.   
IDAHO         
ILLINOIS     SB 121 passed in 2007 which challenges juvenile provisions of the SORNA: allows juveniles to petition to be removed from registry after a full hearing, 2 years for misdemeanor offense; 5 years for a felony offense   
INDIANA         
IOWA         
KANSAS      Working on substantial legislative changes to become compliant with SORNA. Interested in achieving substantial compliance this year. Will implement nearly all of it but some problems with JSO piece. Kansas will exceed SORNA’s registration requirements by having all sex offenses except for sexual battery register for life. Sexual battery will require a 15-year registration. Erik D. Wood
Section Chief

Licensing, Registration, and Missing Persons

Kansas Bureau of Investigation

(785) 296-8200

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
KENTUCKY         
LOUISIANA HB 970

R.S. 15:540 et seq
 Yes; not in compliance. SMART Office responded. LA not in compliance.  SMART Office says the state has to change state codes regarding sexual assault to be in compliance.   Also said tiering has to be fact-based rather than based on elements of the state offense.  Also said LA not in compliance vis a vis tribal nations.   

Supreme Court ruled that retroactivity did not violate expo facto. United States Supreme Court is set for Argument on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 regarding Patrick Kennedy v. Louisiana a Jefferson Parrish sex offender on death row.
 Emma DeVillier
Assistant Attorney General

LA State Attorney General’s Office

Criminal Division

P.O. Box 94005

Baton Rouge, LA  70804-9005

Telephone:  225-326-6284
 
MAINE     Waiting to see if a substantial number of states don’t comply.   
MARYLAND     January 2008 - proposed legislation (SB 24 – Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act Task Force)
to examine the need for a committee to be appointed to deal with AWA/SORNA implementation. As of 1/9/08 – bill is in First Reading - Judicial Proceedings.
 Kevin Wade
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
MASSACHUSETTS     MA Executive Office of Public Safety is (EOPS) is the lead agency for compliance with AWA; they have not decided on their strategy yet, but are leaning towards compliance.  The MA District Attorney Association did a comprehensive opinion on what parts of the AWA violate the State's constitution and issued a paper on this ( e.g., retroactivity, immediate notification without adequate due process, etc.).  No forward movement yet at the legislative side (that we know of).  MATSA and MASOC very involved in trying to influence the outcome. And have issued a position paper asking to forgo the Byrne Grant funds because AWA does NOT make our communities safer.  And if move forward the recommendation is to remove juveniles from AWA and add in a number of safety components that will actually work. Several state constitutional issues have been identified as counter to the provisions of the SORNA, including the right of sex offenders to a due process hearing to determine risk level. Joan Tabachnick
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
MICHIGAN         
MINNESOTA     Minnesota is awaiting publication of the final guidelines and needs to better analyze the cost of implementation; currently considering how implementation would affect current sex offender registration system.  There are no plans at this time to introduce AWA-related legislation in the 2008 session.  Harry Kennedy
Minnesota State Sex Offender Policy Coordinator

1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200

St. Paul, MN 55108-5219

651-361-7232

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it    

 
MISSISSIPPI HB 1015   Passed SORNA compliance bill but it does not address retroactivity, nor is it in compliance as far as the requirements re: juveniles.   
MISSOURI     Stalling. Don’t think they can do the juvenile piece, esp. the 12 y.o. piece.   
MONTANA SB 156   SB 156 passed in early 2007 addresses some aspects of the SORNA compliance, but not all. Montana legislature meets for only 90 days every two years. Next legislative session is just before the July 2009 substantial compliance date. No SORNA-specific legislation has been drafted yet. Andy Hudak
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
NEBRASKA LB 957   Compliance legislation proposed late January 2008 but not yet passed.   
NEVADA AB 579 Submitted their compliance package to the SMART Office. No answer yet. AB 579 was passed May 31, 2007, enrolled on June 1, 2007, approved by governor on June 13, 2007, and codified in Chapter 485 of the NRS on June 14, 2007. Becomes effective July 1, 2008. NV appears to be closest to substantial compliance of all the states that have passed compliance legislation. Diane McCord
NEW HAMPHIRE     Legislative subcommittee studying the AWA and trying to figure out how to bring NH into compliance; there have been a number of subcommittee hearings. Their recommendations will then be brought to the whole committee and will be presented during the upcoming legislative session.  Not clear what their final recommendations to the wider committee will be, although they are being very conservative and have adopted almost everything as is or with stricter guidelines since some of these came out of the NH Sexual Predator Law that took effect last January (2007). Kimberly Marsh - MSW
President - NH ATSA 
Director of Sexual Offender Treatment 
NH Department of Corrections

NH State Prison 
603-271-7361
 
NEW JERSEY         
NEW MEXICO     Taking a wait-and-see approach.  NM will not attempt to pass AWA legislation until January, 2009. Uncomfortable with the juveniles and retroactivity provisions of the Proposed Guidelines and have provided letters to DOJ on two occasions complaining about this.  Otherwise, NM appears to already by approximately 80% compliant. Many NM state officials are adamantly opposed to the juvenile provisions.  Will be difficult for legislature to enact legislation providing for substantial compliance if DOJ maintains its strict reading of AWA. Randall Cherry
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
NEW YORK     Has not yet determined whether it will comply with the AWA requirements.  Still awaiting the publishing of the final guidelines by the federal SMART Office. NY may have problems with compliance vis a vis juveniles since their records are expunged. Concerned with the cost of implementation.   Natasha Harvin, Snr. Attorney
NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Sex Offender Management

  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
NORTH
CAROLINA
     HB 1698 - Conform to Adam Walsh Act -- introduced in April 2007 covered some but not all of AWA.  In June, HB 1698 was referred to Judiciary II Committee.  No action has been taken since then. No other AWA bills introduced yet.  2008 session of the 2007 General Assembly (the “short session”) convenes at noon on May 13, 2008.   Attorney Jill Rosenblum
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
NORTH DAKOTA         
OHIO SB 10 Not yet. Implemented SORNA compliance legislation as of 1/1/08. 

Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of retroactive application of original SORN law, saying that SO classification is remedial, not punitive. State AG and legislators relied exclusively on that case to dispute constitutional claims. Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to recommend against retroactive application (but didn’t testify). SB 10 is retroactive, but not “super retroactive”. SB 10 was amended to greatly limit the juveniles who will appear on the Internet registry. Only juveniles transferred to adult court or designated “serious youthful offenders”. It includes only 2–3% of juvenile sex offenders in DYS. In Oct. 2007, direct action filed in Ohio Supreme Court. Challenge retroactive application of SB 10: violates separation of powers, ex post facto, due process, double jeopardy. The case ultimately dismissed. Ohio AG sent reclassification letters to 35,000 people at a cost of $500,000 dollars. More than 50% of the reclassified sex offender have filed suit. If Ohio had chosen not to comply they would have lost $260,000 dollars in Byrne Fund Grants.


Thousands of challenge petitions filed in county common pleas and juvenile courts across the state. Stark County (Canton) judges are first to hold mass hearing, issue county-wide stay. At least 8 other counties have since issued similar injunctions. In 2007, a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, challenging procedural due process issues. Federal Order filed Feb. 6, extending 60-day period to challenge reclassification, staying community notification for those affected by SB 10 retroactively


On 4/1/08 rules regarding compliance with 2950.16 – certification of juvenile sex offender and/or child-victim offender treatment programs were filed. Specifically:

5139-69-01   Creation of a juvenile sex offender treatment program certification advisory board

5139-69-02    Initial certification of juvenile sex offender and child-victim offender programs

5139-69-03    Juvenile sex offender and child-victim offender treatment standards.
 Kim Kehl
Assistant to the Deputy Director,

Parole and Community Services at the Ohio Dept. of Youth Services

(614)644-6540

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 
OKLAHOMA HB 1760 passed May 2007. Went into effect as of November 1, 2007. Submitted compliance package to the SMART Office. Determined by SMART that OK did not achieve substantial compliance with this law. The Oklahoma legislature is also
currently considering HB 3159 to achieve further compliance.


Under HB 1760 5,500 SOs were reclassified and almost 80% of them have been reclassified as Tier III offenders.


No lawsuits by reclassified SOs have yet been filed though there has been some talk of this happening.
 Jim Rabon, Administrator 
Sentence Administration and Offender Records Unit 
Oklahoma Department of Corrections 
3400 M. L. King Ave., PO Box 11400 
Oklahoma City, OK  73136-0400 
Phone:  405-425-2615
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 
OREGON     Earliest legislative session to address SORNA will be Jan 2009; right now looking at the financial impact of implementing the SORNA; legislative concepts are not due from state agencies until later in 2008 Vi Beaty, Manager
Oregon Sex Offender Registry

Oregon State Police

Criminal Investigations Div.

(503) 934-0176

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
PENNSYLVANIA     PA has introduced a SORNA compliance-related bill, SB 1130, but it doesn’t address much of what needs to be addressed to come into compliance.  Lauren Taylor
PA Sexual Offenders Assessment Board
1101 S Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17104
Phone: (717) 787-5430
Fax: (717) 787-5430
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
RHODE ISLAND         
SOUTH
CAROLINA
         
SOUTH DAKOTA         
TENNESSEE         
TEXAS     Will not address the SORNA until the Jan 2009 session. Had a bill in the 2007 session of the legislature that would have brought TX into partial compliance. Allison Taylor
Texas Council on Sex Offender Tx
1100 W. 49th St. Austin, TX 78756
(512) 834-4530
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
UTAH     No compliance attempt will be made during the 2008 legislative session. Though making statutory change in 2008. – Jim Ingle

Will submit our version of SORNA to the legislature this session keeping the good policy aspects and leaving out the bad. – Scott Carver


HB 492 is a sex offender bill introduced this session that addresses some of the SORNA requirements, but contravenes others, e.g. requires SOs to report changes of residence, work, education institution,

vehicle, and other information within three business days rather than five days; but requires SOs to register every six months, rather than every year as is currently required by the UT registry
 Jim Ingle
Utah Department of Corrections

14717 S. Minuteman Drive

Draper, UT  84020

(801) 495-7706

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Scott Carver

Director

Utah Sentencing Commission

801-538-1645

Utah State Capitol Complex

East Office Building, Suite E330

P.O. Box 142330

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330
 
VERMONT         
VIRGINIA         
WASHINGTON     Legislature currently in session.  I’m not aware of efforts to come into compliance with Adam Walsh at this point.  One of our government offices has completed a cost breakdown of what it would take to comply vs. the loss of the funding, that report has not been released to my knowledge. - Kecia Kecia Rongen
Program Administrator

Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration

PO Box 45720

Olympia, WA 98504

(360) 902-7952

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Jean Soliz Conklin

Executive Director

WA State Sentencing Commission

4565 7th Ave. SE, 2nd Fl. Olympia, WA 98504

(360) 407-1050

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Toby Shulruff
 
WEST VIRGINIA         
WISCONSIN         
WYOMING         
 
 

NOTES


Estimated Byrne Fund Reductions

STATE FY 07 FY 08  Potential 10% Loss of Byrne
California $52.5 million $19 million $1.9 million
Colorado $6.5 million $2.4 million $240,000
Hawaii $2.5 million $890,000 $89,000
Kansas $4.4 million $1.6 million $160,000
Louisiana $8 million $3 million $300,000
Massachusetts $9.5 million $3.5 million $350,000
New Mexico $4 million $1.5 million $150,000
New York $26 million $9.5 million $950,000
Pennsylvania  $16.4 million $6 million $600,000
Texas $33 million $12 million $1.2 million
Utah $3.5 million $1.3 million $130,000
Washington $8 million $3 million $300,000

 
 
 

Byrne Grant funding for states is being drastically reduced as per the passage of the federal Omnibus Appropriations bill (HR 2764) on December 21, 2007; there will be a 66% drop in funds across the US and some states will lose as much as 75% of their Byrne Grant funding. This may provide further incentive for some states not to comply with the SORNA.
 

AZ, CO, WA, and CA are all working on a cost breakdown of what it will cost them to implement the SORNA. AZ has completed theirs. Ohio prepared this before passing SB 10.
 

There are clearly not only negative fiscal impacts to implementing the SORNA but an array of other unintended consequences, e.g. massive plea bargaining to non-registerable offenses and fewer juveniles and adults SOs getting the Tx they need, etc.

< Prev		Next >