what happens if you fail to register as a violent offender montana

Topic:
CRIMINALS; SEX CRIMES; CRIMINAL RECORDS; CRIME;
Location:
Crime AND CRIMINALS;

January 18, 2006		2006-R-0071
Fierce OFFENDER REGISTRIES
By: Christopher Reinhart, Senior Attorney

You asked for data virtually violent offender registries.

SUMMARY

We found three states that require violent offenders to register: Kansas, Montana, and Oklahoma. All three have websites to search for offender data. All three crave registration for offenders who commit homicides but the states vary in the types of other crimes that are included. All iii crave 10 year registration for starting time time offenders and lifetime registration for echo offenders. Some other offenders must register for life. For example, in Montana, a person convicted of a violent criminal offence that requires registration who does not register or keep his registration electric current must register for life. Montana as well allows an offender to petition the courtroom to end his registration: the court must grant the petition if the person ' s required ten year registration is over and the court may grant it to end lifetime registration in sure circumstances.

Beneath we include a list of the crimes requiring registration and the registration periods in each state. If you would similar further information on any of these laws, delight permit us know.

It appears that Connecticut could adopt such a registry. Connecticut has a comprehensive body of law regarding public admission to criminal record data. The law makes confidence data generally available to the public. The public can admission information by contacting the police department that conducted the investigation or the courtroom that heard the matter. The public can as well contact the State Law and pay $25 for a person ' s criminal history record using either the person ' s proper noun and date of birth or fingerprints.

A violent offender registry would appear to be similar to a sex offender registry and the courts have upheld laws requiring sex offenders to register. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court made two rulings upholding sex offender registries. In one involving Connecticut ' south sexual activity offender registry, the Courtroom considered a case where the lower courts determined that public disclosure and broadcasting of the registry implicated potential registrants ' constitutional freedom interests, thus giving them the right to evidence that they were non dangerous before the section added their names to the public registry. The Court ruled that even if sex activity offender registration implicates a constitutional liberty interest, a question it found unnecessary to determine, it ended that offenders receive all the process that is constitutionally required when they are given the opportunity to contest their guilt in the criminal proceedings. Whether or not an offender is dangerous at the time he is required to register is irrelevant under Connecticut ' s law; thus property a hearing on that question could non change the result.

In the second case, involving Alaska ' south sex offender registry, the Court ruled that applying the registration police retroactively to offenders convicted before the act ' s passage did non violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Courtroom plant the registration requirement non-punitive and therefore was not a retroactive punishment forbidden by the clause.

While information technology appears that the legal reasoning in the sex activity offender registry cases would employ to a violent offender registry, it is possible that unlike legal arguments could be made regarding a vehement offender registry.

VIOLENT OFFENDER REGISTRIES LAWS IN OTHER STATES

Kansas

Kansas expanded its registration law to include offenders who committed violent crimes in 1997. Violent offenders are those convicted of:

ane. murder (capital murder and 1^st and 2^nd degree murder);

2. manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary);

3. attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit one of the to a higher place crimes; and

iv. crimes in federal, armed forces, and other state courts that are comparable.

Some other provision requires registration of those bedevilled of (ane) kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping when the victim is under age 18 and (ii) criminal restraint when the victim is under age 18.

Kickoff time offenders register for 10 years and 2nd time offenders for life (Kansas � 22-4901 et seq.).

Montana

In 1995, Montana required certain violent offenders to annals in improver to sexual offenders. The offenders are those convicted of:

1. aggravated assault;

2. arson;

3. attack on a small, peace officer, or judicial officeholder;

4. assault with a weapon;

5. deliberate and mitigated deliberate homicide;

six. functioning of an unlawful clandestine laboratory (sure offenses involving illegal drugs);

7. partner or family member set on (third or subsequent conviction);

8. robbery;

ix. endeavour, solicitation, or conspiracy to commit any of these crimes; or

10. reasonably equivalent offenses in other states or under federal constabulary.

Violent offenders register for 10 years. If the person is convicted of a felony or of failing to register or keep registration current during the 10 yr period, registration is for life.

Later on 10 years of registration, an offender tin petition the court for an order to end registration. The courtroom must grant the order if the person ' s registration period is over. If the offender is bailiwick to lifetime registration, the courtroom may grant the petition if (1) the offender has been a law-abiding citizen and (two) continued registration is not necessary to protect the public and catastrophe registration is in society ' s all-time interest (Montana Code � 46-23-501, et seq.).

Oklahoma

In 2004, Oklahoma required certain violent offenders to register. The offenders are those convicted of:

ane. one^st or 2^nd caste murder;

2. 1^st degree manslaughter;

three. (a) shooting or discharging a firearm with intent to kill; (b) using a vehicle to facilitate the intentional discharge of a firearm, crossbow, or other weapon; or (c) assault and battery with a deadly weapon or by ways probable to produce death;

4. assault with intent to kill;

5. bombing;

6. attempt to commit any of these crimes; or

seven. any criminal offense substantially similar to these adjudicated by a state, federal, tribal, or war machine courtroom.

A person must register during his sentence and for x years later on completing the sentence, which includes whatever term that is deferred, suspended, or subject to parole. A person must annals for life as a habitual violent crime offender if he is convicted of a crime requiring registration and (1) is later bedevilled of some other crime requiring registration or (2) enters the state afterwards Nov 1, 2004 and has a conviction in another state for a criminal offense that would require registration in Oklahoma (57 Ok. Stat. �591, et seq.).

CONNECTICUT—PUBLIC ACCESS TO Conviction Data

Confidence data is available to the public and agencies property such data must institute reasonable hours and places for inspection (CGS �� 54-142k(a) and (b)). "Confidence information" means criminal history tape information, other than erased records, that discloses that a person has pleaded no contest or nolo contendere, or was bedevilled of a crime (CGS � 54-142g(c)). "Criminal history tape information" means court records and information compiled by criminal justice agencies for purposes of identifying criminal offenders and of maintaining with regard to each such offender notations of arrests, releases, detentions, indictments, informations, pleas, trials, sentences, appeals, incarcerations, correctional supervision, and paroles. Criminal history record information does not include intelligence, presentence investigation, investigative data, or disclosable bail information (CGS � 54-142g(a)).

U.Due south. SUPREME Court RULINGS ON Sex OFFENDER REGISTRIES

Connecticut Case on Due Process

The U.Southward. Supreme Court considered Connecticut ' s sex offender registry in a case where the lower courts determined that public disclosure and broadcasting of the registry implicated potential registrants ' constitutional liberty interests, thus giving them the right to bear witness that they were not unsafe before the department added their names to the public registry (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe (123 S.Ct. 1160 (2003)).

The plaintiff claimed that the registration constabulary violated, amidst other things, the Due Process Clause of the U.Due south. Constitution ' south 14^th Subpoena. Specifically, he claimed that he is not a dangerous sexual offender and that the Connecticut law deprives him of a liberty interest without giving him notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Court first discussed its prior Due Process Clause holdings, noting that in every case where it had found that a hearing was constitutionally required, the specific fact that was to be established at the hearing was relevant. But in the present case, the fact that the plaintiff sought to testify – that he is not currently dangerous – was not relevant to his registration obligations.

The Court determined that the Connecticut police force ' s registration requirements turn on an offender ' s conviction alone – a fact that a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest. Thus, even if the plaintiff could bear witness that he is not likely to be currently dangerous, the Connecticut legislature has decided that the registry information of all sex offenders – currently dangerous or not—must be publicly disclosed.

The Court noted that the simply question it had been asked to decide was whether Connecticut ' s statutory scheme violated the plaintiff ' s right to take a hearing about his electric current dangerousness. Because of this, it declined to limited an opinion on whether the registration law conflicts with whatever other constitutional provision (Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, at 1164-65).

In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia expressed the view that the passage of Megan ' s Police in and of itself abrogated whatever due process rights offenders might otherwise have had to disprove their dangerousness. Justices Souter and Ginsburg filed a second concurring opinion. They emphasized the narrowness of the issue that the Court decided and suggested that other constitutional claims, non raised in this case, were even so feasible.

Alaska Instance On Retroactive Application

In a case involving Alaska ' s sex offender registry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that applying the registration law retroactively to offenders bedevilled before the act ' s passage did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Smith five. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)). The Court found the registration requirement non-punitive rather than criminal and therefore not a retroactive penalty forbidden past the clause.

The Courtroom stated that the formative question was whether the legislature meant to plant "civil proceedings" rather than to impose punishment. If the legislature intended to create a regulatory scheme that is civil and non-punitive, the Court and so looks at whether the scheme was then castigating in purpose or event as to negate the state ' s intent to deem the law equally civil.

The Court looked at the statute ' s text and structure for an express or implied preference for either characterization and looked at other formal attributes of the legislative enactment like codification or enforcement procedures. The Court found that Alaska intended to create a civil, non-punitive regime.

The Court also found that the human action ' s effects did non negate Alaska ' s intention to institute a civil regulatory scheme. It examined the furnishings under the seven factors set out in Kennedy 5. Mendoza-Martinez (372 U.South. 267). It establish that the regulatory scheme:

one. has non been regarded in the nation ' south history and traditions equally punishment;

ii. does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint;

3. does not promote the traditional aims of punishment;

four. has a rational connection to a legitimate not-castigating purpose, public rubber, that is avant-garde past alerting the public to the risk of sex offenders in their community; and

5. is not excessive with respect to its purpose.

The Court constitute that the other 2 factors had little weight in this case.

Justices Souter and Thomas both wrote split opinions concurring in the judgment, Justice Stevens wrote a dissenting stance, and Justice Ginsburg wrote a dissenting stance that Justice Breyer joined.

CR:ro

carranzatwongive.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0071.htm

Share this post