Missouri 28 C.F.R. 72.3

In Missouri the two cases of Doe v Lee and Doe v Keathley make Sex Offender Registration mandatory under 28 C.F.R. 72.3 retrospectively to all sex offenders without limit. In the case of Carr v US it was shown that the reading of a law is to be understandable in plain language and is a good example of such.
§ 72.3 Applicability of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
The requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act apply to all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment of that Act.

Does this not state that the offense must be a registered offense (or at least registrable under the prior acts) prior to the enactment of that act for it to be registrable under that act?
If I am reading this correctly than Doe v Phillips would still be in full effect and the other 2 cases would be in error.
The prerequisite for inclusion does not list those that do not have a prior requirement to register. In the reading of 72.3 is found similarities to what is found in Carr v United States “By its terms, the first element of §2250(a) can only be satisfied when a person “is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.”

Not Argued

Many times in the judicial system there are items that will remain unanswered at the end of the proceedings. It is also not uncommon that a ruling would be against what is right and fair for a reason that was not included or part of the decision making process. Sometimes it is the laws themselves that are the problem and should be dealt with. It would be of great benefit to have a fair accounting of these items for use as reference. There should be a place where one could go to get this information and gain a more or less comprehensive understanding of what is and isn't true of it.

I have seen forums, blogs, and wikis that try to do some of this but there are problems with these efforts. They tend to be one sided or nothing more than arguments. This would be an insult to our intelligence and commonality. The question here would be if you want the truth or a perception of the truth? Perspective is important but too narrow of a perspective and you can miss even the most obvious of things. Too wide of a perspective and even the greatest of things can be overlooked as being insignificant.

There would be several interdependent areas that have to be looked at in such a way as to gain the most correct information.

• Constitution
• Laws
• Rullings

It would have to all start with questions and end with articles.

Failure to Register

According to my findings there are many issues with sex offender registration laws and one of them is the area surrounding a Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. Here is a simple list of the items I have at this time.

1. Due Process.

a. Authorities failed to provide proper notification in accord with 42 U.S.C. 16917 (b).

b. The Attorney General must comply with 42 U.S.C. 16917 (b).

c. S.O.R.N.A. Final Guidelines attempts to remove the responsibility of the Attorney General to comply with 42 U.S.C. 16917 (b).

d. The Attorney General has yet to prescribe rules for the proper notification under 42 U.S.C. 16917 (b).

e. Reasonable implementation of S.O.R.N.A. Missouri could not implement S.O.R.N.A. in a manner that would allow for proper notification without rules that “The Attorney General shall prescribe”.

2. In absence of the fulfillment of U.S.C. 16917 (b) Missouri must fall back on the provisions for reasonable implementation of S.O.R.N.A. for those that fall under Missouri Statute.

a. Missouri may not prosecute for failure to register under S.O.R.N.A. where notification is possible.

b. Missouri failed to exhaust all other means.

c. Adoption of federal guidelines for notification of registration requirements by state is not an option granted by Congress.

3. Missouri has ruled that there is an independent obligation under federal law to register.

a. Federal law has notification requirements.

b. Federal law has 2250 for failure to register.

c. “Affirmative Defense” applicable under 2250 if obligation is under federal law.

d. Act of commerce required for application under federal law.

e. Congress made attempts to keep Federal and State separated.

4. Retroactive application of S.O.R.N.A.

a. Carr v US sets the rule of order that events must take.

b. Carr v US defines how the order affects the retroactive application.

c. Carr v US changes rulings of Doe v Lee and Doe v Keathley.

d. Doe v Phillips still good.

e. 28 C.F.R. Part 72 Does not apply to 42 U.S.C. 16917 (b)

Although this list is only a partial one it should help to defend yourself in cases where notification was possible but not done. For the most part this issue affects the states and the ability to enact S.O.R.N.A. I am also faced with this issue and will update you as things progress.