Once Fallen
"Through Knowledge and Wisdom Shall We Rise From The Ashes"
<-- Back To Index

The Adam Walsh Act Study Guide
Derek “The Fallen One” Logue
January 28, 2008 (Last Update Sept. 11, 2008)

The Adam Walsh Act (AWA) is short for “The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,” the
controversial federal sex offender law intended to standardize sex offender laws across the country. The
AWA is an attempt to pass minimum national standards and continuity in sex offender legislation. Every
state must adopt the AWA by 2009 or take a 10% cut in Federal law enforcement grants. As states debate
whether or not to implement this act, the few states that have thus far have brought up a number of
challenges.

This fact guide is a summary of the Federal version of the AWA and potential challenges to the AWA
should your state consider implementing this law.

Comprehensive Breakdown of HR 4472, the AWA

Title I: Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
  • Sec. 111: Establishes a three tiered classification system for sex offenders
  • Tier I: A sex offender other than a Tier II or Tier III
  • Tier II: A sex offender, not a Tier III, convicted of a felony charge or attempt to commit sex
    trafficking, coercion and enticement, transportation with intent to engage in criminal sexual
    activity, or abusive sexual contact; if it involves use of a minor in a sexual performance,
    solicitation of a minor to practice prostitution, or, production or distribution of child porn; or
    any sex offense committed after a person is labeled a Tier I offender.
  • Tier III: A felony sex offender convicted of aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, or
    abusive sexual contact of a minor under age 13; non-custodial kidnapping; or any sex
    offense committed after the person becomes a Tier II offender.
  • Sec. 111-5-C: Consensual sexual conduct is not listed as a sex offense if the victim was at least 13
    and the offender is not more than 4 years older than the victim.
  • Sec. 113-e: All states must make failure to register a felony offense
  • Sec. 115: Establishes duration of Registration Requirement
  • Tier I: 15 years, can appeal for removal after 10 years or reduction after 5 years
  • Tier II: 25 years
  • Tier III: Life, can appeal for removal or reduction after 25 years
  • Sec. 120: Establishes a National Sex Offender Registry
  • Sec. 125: If a state fails to comply, they lose 10% of their federal grant money for crime fighting
  • Sec. 130-131: The NCMEC and law enforcement agencies are immune from liabilities when acting
    in “Good Faith Conduct.”
  • Subtitle B, sec. 141-146: Federal involvement in sex crime cases; US Marshals given Jurisdiction;
    “Project Safe Childhood” implementing or expanding tasks forces targeting sex crimes
  • Subtitle C, Sec. 151-155: Mandatory background checks before allowing persons to adopt or work
    around children, including DNA

Title II Sec. 201-216: Sex Crime Punishment/ Sentencing Enhancements
  • Sec. 201: Adds prohibition on sale of date rape drugs
  • Sec. 202-f: “Jetseta Gage assured punishment for violent crimes against children:” Murder- life or
    30 years; kidnapping, 25 years; use of weapon or bodily injury, 10 years
  • Sec. 203: Coercion and enticement by sex offenders: 10 years
  • Sec. 210: Sex Offender must submit to searches of persons or property at any time with or without a
    warrant as a condition of supervised release
  • Sec. 211; Removes statute of limitations of felony sex offenses
  • Sec. 205, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 215: Other mandatory sentencing changes
  • Sec. 214: Removes marital communications from secured privileges in child abuse cases
  • Sec. 216: Amendments to Bail Reform Act to Address Sex Crimes and other Matters

Title III: “Jimmy Rice State Civil Commitment Programs for Sexually Dangerous Persons.”
  • Sec. 302: Amends 18-313-5/6 US Code definition of “sexually dangerous person” meaning, (5) “a
    person who has engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation
    and who is sexually dangerous to others, and (6) ‘sexually dangerous to others’ with respect to a
    person, means that the person suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder as a
    result of which he could have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child
    molestation if released.”

Title IV: Immigration Law Reforms
  • Sec. 401: sex offenses are deportable offenses
  • Sec. 402: sex offenders cannot get family-based petitions approved

Title V: Child Pornography Prevention (Sec. 501-507)
  • Sec. 504: Prevents prosecution from making copies of child porn evidence for discovery at trial, but
    must make it “reasonably available” for the defense for trial
  • Sec. 505: Allows civil and criminal asset forfeiture in child exploitation and obscenity cases

Title VI: Grants, Studies, and Programs for Children and Community Safety (Sec. 601-639)
  • Includes grants for Big Brothers/ Big Sisters (Sec. 603), child fingerprinting programs (Sec. 627),
    Fugitive Safe Surrender (Sec. 632), and a national registry for child abuse (Sec. 633), along with
    programs of sex crime prevention, registration compliance, and treatment for sex offenders, and
    other sex crime punishment issues

Title VII: Internet Safety Act (Sec. 701-707)
  • Sec. 701: “Child exploitation enterprise”- mandatory 20 years
  • Sec. 702: Adds 10 mandatory years, served consecutively, to registered sex offenders who re-
    offend
  • Sec. 703: “Deception by embedded words and images” added to list of crimes, meaning anyone
    who deceives someone into viewing obscene material can be imprisoned up to 10 years, or 20 if a
    minor was involved.
  • Sec. 704-706: increasing staff at various law enforcement agencies to handle Internet crimes
  • Sec. 707: “Masha’s Law:” Increases amount a victim of a sex crime can sue a sex offender
    increases from $50,000 to $150,000. (From “Once Fallen” book)

A BRIEF Summary of AWA Provisions

  • Title I: SORNA, national sex offender registry including both residence and employer/school,
    community notification, three tiered classification system based on crime rather than risk, giving
    immunity to law enforcement and NCMEC when acting in “good faith,” DNA database, US Marshals
    given jurisdiction in sex cases
  • Title II: Stiffens penalties for sex and related crimes (such as selling date rape drugs), and gives
    victims greater leeway in criminal cases
  • Title III: Civil commitment for “dangerous sex offenders”
  • Title IV: Immigration laws making sex offenses deportable offenses, and bars offenders against
    minors from obtaining a family-based visa.
  • Title V: Stronger record keeping requirements for porn industry to ensure no minors are used in
    creation of porn, civil forfeiture
  • Title VI: Funding for numerous programs, including GPS pilot program, fingerprinting children, and
    a national child abuse registry
  • Title VII: Increasing penalties for Internet related crimes, funding for increased LE, and expand the
    civil remedy available to sex crime victims (HR 4472- Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
    2006: Legislative Notice.” July 20, 2006).

Is AWA retroactive?

Sadly, YES! (Thanks to disgraced US AG Gonzales’s “Interim Rule”—meaning he placed the rule in effect
before public comment, bypassing APA procedure due to “pressing emergency”). The argument used is
here is the same argument typically used by the government circumvent the US Constitution—that these
laws are “intended to be non-punitive, regulatory measures adopted for public safety purposes, and
hence may validly be applied (and enforced by criminal sanctions) against sex offenders whose predicate
convictions occurred prior to the creation of these requirements” (US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales,
Memo to the US Dept. of Justice, 72 FR 30210-01, 2007 WL 1540140 [F.R.]. May 30, 2007). But see www.
oncefallen.com/CivilVCriminal.html for information regarding whether laws are criminal or civil in nature.

Problems with the AWA

Aside from the retroactivity issue, there remain a number of immediate concerns to sex offenders, most
notably the classification system, the national registry, mandatory minimums, and civil commitment.
An interesting note is how the AWA was passed in the first place. In May 2007, the US Attorney General
established an “Interim Rule,” meaning he deemed the situation a “pressing emergency” and thus
bypassed ordinary procedure. Thus he deemed SORNA retroactive to all sex offenders, but declines to
provide any procedures for notice and registration of sex offenders (Amy Baron-Evans, “Supplement to
Adam Walsh Act- Part II,” Office of Defender Services, May 2007).

List of issues and  potential challenges to the AWA

Below is a summary of various arguments found around regarding the mountain of problems associated
with the AWA. Since the arguments against these laws are so massive, I have attempted to summarize the
wealth of information obtained mainly from the Office of Defender Services.

Summary of Amy Baron-Evans & Sara Noonan, “Adam Walsh Act- Part I,” Office of Defender Services,
October 2006.

  • Mandatory minimums:
  1. 8th Amendment: Harshness of penalty is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense
    [Ewing v. California, 538 US 11, 20 (2003)], though laws have not been struck down yet; but
    see State v. Davis, 79 P. 3d 64 (Ariz. 2003), cert. denied, Arizona v. Davis, 541 US 1037
    (2004), circumstances determine argument
  2. Equal Protection: Challenge on grounds of failing “rational basis test;” laws tend to be
    disproportionately used against minorities
  3. Due Process Right to Individualized Sentencing: Death Penalty prohibited as mandatory
    punishment (Woodson v. NC, 428 US 280 (1976), must consider mitigating circumstances
    (Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586, 602-4 (1978);
  4. Separation of Powers: Mandatory minimums unite the power to prosecute and the power to
    sentence within the Executive branch rather than judicial (see Mistretta v US, 488 US 361,
    382, 391 n. 17 [1989]). In enticement and certain child porn cases, government creates the
    offense; how many real minor cases actually happen?
  5. Argument is the mandatory nature
  • Statute of Limitations removed for felony sex cases
  1. Violates ex post facto in any case where the statute of limitations ran out before the law is
    enacted (Stogner v. California, 539 US 607, 611, 617-18 [2003])
  2. Equal protection: “Statute of limitations were made to safeguard against charges where facts
    are “obscured by the passage of time” (Toussie v. US, 397 US 112, 114-5 [1970]). 18 USC
    Sec. 3282- 5 year statute of limitations
  3. Can use due process argument on the grounds defense can prove prejudice and the reason
    for delay is not “sufficiently justifiable (US v. Lovasco, 431 US 783, 789-90 [1979]).
  • Bail (conditions of bail)
  1. Requiring accused to wear electronic monitoring without a finding of necessity as a condition
    of bail may violate Due Process (US v. Salerno, 481 US 739, 749 [1987]).
  2. Warrantless searches cannot be a condition of pretrial release (US v. Scott, 450 F. 3d 863
    [9th Cir. 2006]).
  • Discovery of evidence in porn cases
  1. “No discovery” provision is unconstitutional (Westerfield v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d
    402, 404-05 [Cal. App. Ct. 02]).
  2. Defense gets “fair opportunity” to defend self, including use of expert testimony (Ake v.
    Oklahoma, 470 US 68, 74-76 [1985], Smith v. McCormick, 914 F. 2d 1153 [9th Cir. 1990]).).
  3. Expert must examine hard drive in computer case to see if images were purposely
    downloaded or were put there by someone else (US v. Fabrizio, 341 F. Supp. 2d 47 [D.
    Mass. 2004])
  4. Counsel has right to conduct reasonable investigation- inhibiting such violates 5th Amend.
    Due Process and 6th Amend. Right to effective assistance of counsel (Strickland v.
    Washington, 466 US 668, 690-91 [1984]).
  5. Forcing defense experts to conduct work on government computers would unfairly constrain
    them in terms of time and equipment, and also take away the privacy of defense to elaborate
    a proper defense (Hickman v. Taylor, 329 US 495, 510-11 [1947], Williams v. State, 958 SW
    2d 186, 193-96 [Tex. Crim. App. 1997]).
  6. No discovery violates presumption of innocence by assuming that what the government
    alleges to be child porn IS child porn (see US v. Turner, 367 F. Supp. 2d 319, 325-26 [ED NY
    2005], calling alleged victims “crime victims” during trial).
  • Treatment and Management
  1. Management is NOT the same as treatment; management is merely supervision
  2. Treatment programs require participants to admit guilt (and other sexual misconduct) in order
    to start, which those in appeal cannot do
  • Civil Commitment
  1. 18 USC Sec. 4247 (a) (5)-(6): Defines “sexually dangerous” as anyone committing sexually
    violent conduct or child molestation and “suffers from serious mental illness, abnormality or
    disorder resulting in serious difficulty refraining from sexually violent conduct or child
    molestation if released- a vague definition of mental illness
  2. 18 USC Sec. 4241 (a): AWA allows predator hearing anytime between sentencing and release
  • Victim Rights
  1. Victims are allowed to be in habeas corpus hearings under AWA; if allowed to speak, argue
    on grounds of relevance (US v. Marcello, 370 F. Supp. 2d 745 [ND Ill. 2005]).


Summary of Amy Baron-Evans & Sara Noonan, “Adam Walsh Act- Part II,” Office of Defender Services,
May 2007. Regards SORNA- Registry and Classification

  • Due Process
  1. AWA assigns tier level based on mere fact of conviction/ enumerated offense; provides no
    relief to petition for relief for any reason for any reason other than a “clean record” for 10 or
    25 years in a narrow set of cases; in certain cases, this violates Due Process and state
    constitutional or statutory law
  2. Circumstances include overturned/ expunged/ pardoned cases, clerical/ administrative
    errors, or regulations not on the books [Branch v. Collier, 2004 WL 942194 (ND Tex. Apr. 30,
    2004); Coleman v. Dretke 409 F. 3d 665 (5th Cir. 2005); People v. Bell, 3 Misc. 3d 773, 778
    NYS 2d 837 (2003); Doe v. State, 92 P. 3d 398, 404-12 (Alaska 2004)].
  • Conflict with State Constitutions and Statutes
  1. SORNA automatic registration and no relief provisions conflicts with many states’ statutes and
    constitutional law [In re. JG, 169 NJ 304 (2001); Doe v. Poritz, 142 NJ 1 (1995); Doe v.
    Attorney General, 426 Mass. 136, 686 NE 2d (1997); State v. Bani, 36 P. 2d 1255, 1268
    (Hawaii 2001); Brummer v. Iowa Dept. of Corr., 661 NW 2d 167 (Iowa 2003); State v. Guidry,
    96 P. 3d 242 (Hawaii 2004)].
  2. The AWA compels states to conform to its standards or lose 10% of Edward Byrne Memorial
    Criminal Justice Assistance Grants funds [42 USC Sec. 16925 a-b]. Offenders may seek
    declaratory judgment under state constitution from the state’s highest court.
  • Separation of Powers
  1. When offender is placed under SORNA based on Attorney General (AG) but not listed by
    Congress, it should be challenged in a declaratory judgment action; file a motion to dismiss
    based on invalid regulation. Congress gives AG limited powers which it is exceeding in this
    instance, making it invalid [Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S. Ct. 904, 916-22 (2006)].
  2. If AG is given power to designate sex offenses, it unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking to
    the Executive in violation of Separation of Powers [Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 US
    388, 421 (1935); Schechter Poultry Corp. v. US, 295 US 495 (1935); Fahey v. Mallonee, 332
    US 245, 249 (1947)].
  3. The Courts must construe the statute to avoid constitutional doubt [Clark v. Martinez, 543 US
    371, 381-82 (2005)].
  • Retroactivity
  1. Congress delegated the power to the US AG to make this law retroactive, violating
    Separation of Powers.
  2. Law must be punitive to violate ex post facto. Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (2003) was deeply
    divided on the issue, but in light of new evidence laws cause harm, such as homelessness,
    public ostracism, and vigilantism, it would be harder for government to claim AWA is not
    punitive, notification without any risk assessment threatens public safety, and decision was
    based on high recidivism myth.
  3. “When a legislature uses prior convictions to impose burdens that outpace the law’s stated
    civil aims, there is room for serious argument that the ulterior purpose is to revisit past
    crimes, not prevent future ones.” Smith v. Doe at 109
  • Jurisdiction
  1. To compel the states to pass AWA or lose 10% of the Byrne Funds is coercion and violates
    the 10th Amendment [New York v. US, 505 US 144 (1992); Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997)].
    The 10th Amendment also prohibits the federal government from enlisting state officials in
    enforcing federal law

From Amy Baron-Evans & Sara Noonan, “Supplement to Adam Walsh Act- Part I,” Office of Defender
Services, October 2006.

  • Federalism: “Police power” is a function of the states, who control their own internal affairs [In re
    Rahrer, 140 US 545(1891); Kansas v. Mugler, 123 US 623 (1897); State Board of Insurance et al.
    v. Todd Shipyards Corp., 370 US 451, 455-58 (1962); see also Executive Order 13132]

Summary of Amy Baron-Evans & Sara Noonan, “Adam Walsh Act- Part III,” Office of Defender Services,
October 2006.

  • Civil Commitment hearings:
  1. 5th Amendment privileges suspect no to answer official questions put to him in any other
    proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in
    future proceedings [Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 US 70, 77 (1973)]
  2. a person on supervised release cannot be forced to detail sexual history in treatment without
    being given immunity against future prosecution; cannot be forced to submit to a polygraph
    [US v. Antelope, 395 F. 3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005)]
  3. 5th Amendment rights continue through sentencing; silence cannot be used to draw adverse
    inference, cannot be compelled to admit facts beyond evidence [Mitchell v. US, 526 US 314
    (1999)

Early victories against AWA

  • US v. Bobby Smith, 481 F. Supp. 2d 846, 2007 (ED Mich., Mar. 8, 2007); US v. Jackson, 480 F. 3d
    1014 (9th Cir. 2007): Ex post facto argument against AG regulation if defendant traveled before
    July 27, 2006; provision used word “travels” (future) not “traveled” (past tense)
  • US v. Kapp & Duncan, 487 F. Supp. 2d 536 (MD Pa. May 16, 2007); US v. Marvin L. Smith, 2007
    WL 1725329 (SD W. Va. June 13, 2007): Offenders could not be tried for violating AWA because
    Interim rule had not applied at the time.
  • Note: Above cases may be result of “Falcon III” round-up which occurred in 2006, before
    AWA was implemented and AG applied interim rule (Jim Kouri, “Marshals, Cops Conduct
    Largest Fugitive Round Up in US History.” American Chronicle, Nov. 6, 2006)
  • State v. Boyd, 160 Wash. 2d 424, 158 P 3d 54, 59 n. 4 (2007); State ex rel. Tuller v. Crawford, 211
    SW 3d 676, 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007): Defense access to computer data in child porn cases cannot
    be restricted
  • US v. Comstock et al., Case 5:06-hc-02195-BR [US Dist. Ct. ED N. Car. Sept. 9, 2007)]: Held civil
    commitment standards must be “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than by “clear and convincing
    evidence.”

Timeline of AWA

  • July 27, 2006: Signed into law
  • February 28, 2007: AG “Interim Rule” deems SORNA retroactive
  • May 30, 2007: “SMART” guidelines published for comment
  • August 1, 2007: Comment for SMART closed
  • July 27, 2008: AG must provide software in all jurisdictions
  • July 27, 2009: Deadline for states to implement AWA (Summary of Amy Baron-Evans & Sara
    Noonan, “Supplement 2 to Adam Walsh Act- Part II,” Office of Defender Services, October 2006.)

Case Study: Ohio

Ohio was one of the first states to pass its version of the AWA, known as SB 10, during a “special” session
due to an “emergency,” meaning it was a “non-controversial” law which would have “no” resistance. That
is not true; much like the original AWA, Ohio SB 10 bypassed normal procedure because they knew the
law was unconstitutional, riddled with problems and facing a number of challenges. The legislature even
lied to its constituents by not informing the public of the date the bill would come up for hearing.

On January 1, 2008, SB 10 would take effect. In Hamilton County alone (with an estimated 1950 RSOs),
an estimated 800 SOs would be added to the 350 SOs registering at the highest level, Tier III. Even the
ones who remained a Tier I would have to register an extra 5 years on top of the 10 they were required to
register before SB 10 passed (Sharon Coolidge, “Sex Offenders face tough rules” Cincinnati Enquirer,
Dec. 29, 2007). Many of those offenders who had reached the date they would no longer have to register
received a letter from the Attorney General stating their duties to register would extend (Memo from Ohio
Attorney General, June 29, 2007); the notices were sent out the day before the Ohio governor signed the
bill into law.

Offenders were given 60 days from the time the letter was received to file litigation (though a later federal
mandate allowed an indefinite extension of the deadline, see Doe v. Dann, Case # 1:8-CV-00220-PAG
[ND Ohio (Feb. 6, 2008)]). Hundreds of sex offenders across Ohio, most of whom were offenders that
reached the end of their registration periods after the law took effect, filed motions to stop the
reclassification under SB 10. As these hundreds (at last count, over a thousand statewide) of lawsuits
reach local courts, these cases may possibly be consolidated. As of the time of this writing (Feb 12,
2007), this hasn’t happened yet. (I will update as new info is reported).

In the coming months, the scenario in Ohio may ultimately determine the fate of the AWA. Already other
states are debating whether or not they should pass the AWA. Just as Iowa became the heart of the
debate over residency laws, Ohio is becoming the heart of the debate over the AWA.

Cost of AWA

Sadly, the best argument to be made against the AWA regards the cost of the bill rather than
constitutional challenges. The AWA could not have come at a worse time for legislators seeking to trim
government expenses in the wake of a recession. The AWA is a costly proposal, and at a time when every
dollar counts, it may be wise to argue the fact that the AWA will cost more to implement than states stand
to lose via the 10% cut in the Byrne/ JAG grant for not implementing AWA.

Since each state has different populations and standards, there is no single formula to determine exactly
how much it would actually cost to implement the AWA. Some factors include how much manpower was put
into verifying residences under the old law, whether or not changes must be made in certain established
practices like registries or community notification laws, or whether or not the AWA would force the state to
run programs it has not implemented on its own, such as civil commitment.

The easy part is showing how much states would lose in Byrne/JAG funding if it refuses to comply with
AWA. In 2007, JAG paid out just over $300 million to 50 states, DC, and five US territories. Obviously
larger states like Ohio collected a larger portion of JAG funding. Ohio collected $9.4 million in JAG
Funding (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant.jag.html). However, Congress slashed JAG funding by 70% for
2008. Thus, Ohio should only expect $3 million in JAG funding this year. Thus, by not implementing AWA
in 2008, Ohio only stood to lose $300,000 in JAG cuts.

Compare the potential $300,000 in losses to the projected cost of implementing Ohio SB 10 (www.lbo.
state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalnotes/127ga/SB0010SP.htm). Among the findings of the fiscal report:

  • Registry changes: 22,000 sex offenders would be reclassified; one-time cost for altered registry and
    notifying offenders of changes and right to appeal, $475,000; recurring online service fee $85,000.
  • Incarceration expenses: Expected to cost significantly more due to minimum sentencing, sending
    more to prison and keeping them in prison longer; no numerical estimation, but costs were
    considered “significant”
  • Treatment certifications and offender release information: Changes considered of “minimal cost,”
    which was defined as “an estimated expenditure increase of less than 100,000 per year for the
    state.”
  • Court cost revenues: Increased number of crimes now felonies, meaning minimal increased
    revenue for the Victims of Crime/ Reparation Fund (Fund 402). Gains are minimal, but they make
    note of the fact collecting court costs and fines are problematic, because most offenders are
    unwilling or unable to pay.
  • Of added interest was the note the federal government had only $25 million available to assist the
    56 total states and territories in implementing AWA, otherwise the bill was currently unfunded.

There are other costs to consider as well. In Ohio, only Tier III offenders are subject to community
notification and physical verification of addresses by police. In the above report from the Cincinnati
Enquirer (Coolidge 2007), 800 more offenders were given higher classification levels, adding
administrative costs, manpower, vehicle wear-and-tear, gas, and officer safety issues. In smaller counties
where manpower is at a minimum, resources would be stretched even further.

Ohio is implementing civil commitment legislation and GPS tracking in a separate bill, which will likely be
passed to comply with AWA title III. Civil commitment legislation was already implemented in 20 states, with
reported annual costs per offender ranging from $41,845 to $166,000 (NY Times, “A Profile of Civil
Commitment Across the Country [chart],” Mar. 3, 2007). As for GPS, AWA merely calls for “pilot programs”
rather than implementation. Regardless, many states are considering GPS, and a few have even passed
GPS laws, with the stipulation that offenders must pay a fee to be on GPS. The counterargument is the
same as the repayment of fines, namely, the amount of offenders unable to pay (mainly due to lack of
employment). Another point to consider is the number of false alarms GPS devices give off due to
technological limitations such as satellite position, landmark barriers like tall buildings, and weather
extremes (www.unc.edu/~cahoon/problems.html).

One major issue legislators failed to take into account is the amount of litigation which will stem from
passing AWA. In Ohio, over a thousand offenders have already filed litigation against the state regarding
the AWA. Since reclassification under AWA is a criminal proceeding, the Ohio Office of the Public
Defender was allowed to take indigent cases. Many offenders are increasingly disenfranchised by the
increasingly restrictive barrage of laws, and are more willing to file litigation than in the past. Since many
are unemployed, most offenders are going to qualify for indigent status.

In short, the AWA will cost more to implement then to accept a 10% cut in the JAG. “Implementing the
changes required by the act will cost states a lot of money. At a legislative hearing in Arizona, witnesses
testified that the state would lose between $700,000 and $800,000 in federal law enforcement grants if it
didn’t comply with the law – but that it would cost millions of dollars to expand the state’s sex offender laws
to comply with the Adam Walsh Act” (Sarah Tofte, “Protecting Children from Sexual Violence: Don’t Adopt
the Adam Walsh Act.” Sacramento Bee, Jan. 21, 2008). I assume they were using the 2007 JAG
allocation; taking the proposed Bush cuts into account, Arizona only stands to lose a third of their
projected losses ($233-$266 thousand).

Conclusion

I call the AWA the “unholy grail of sex offender laws” in my book for a reason; the AWA is the most
oppressive law against sex offenders to date. There are numerous problems and potential legal
challenges which should lead to repeal of the AWA.

This report will be updated as new information develops.

Special thanks to the Office of Defender Services for granting me special permission to summarize the
info on their website. All information from that site is their intellectual property, not mine.

Important Links



  • www.blueshifthome.com: Legal site for Ohio, also containing useful legal documents to file against
    the AWA.



UPDATE! An Ohio Court just ruled the AWA violates ex post facto, and thus cannot be applied
retroactively! (Evans v. Ohio, CV-08-646797 [Cuyahoga Co. OH, May 9, 2008])

ADDENDUM (9-11-08)

http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf

The Justice Policy Institute just released a study which shows the annual cost of implementing SORNA
(the national registry) far exceeds the amount that would be lost in Byrne Grant funding:

"In the last two years, some states have extensively analyzed the financial costs of complying with SORNA.
These states have found that implementing SORNA in their state is far more costly than the penalties for
not being in compliance. JPI’s analysis finds that in all 50 states, the first-year costs of implementing
SORNA outweigh the cost of losing 10 percent of the state’s Byrne Grant. Most of the resources available
to states would be devoted to the administrative maintenance of the registry and notification, rather than
targeting known serious offenders. Registries and notification have not been proven to protect
communities from sexual offenses, and may even distract from more effective approaches.

Given the enormous fiscal costs of implementing SORNA, coupled with the lack of evidence that registries
and notification make communities safer, states should think carefully before committing to comply with
SORNA."

Keep in mind this STILL does not include the costs incurred by mandatory minimums, civil commitment,
GPS, the child abuse registry, FALCON operations, and other idiotic provisions of the AWA

http://www.lvrj.com/news/28232419.html -- A Federal Judge ruled AWA CANNOT be applied retroactively
in Nevada! When the actual case is available online I will post the link below.
Copyright (c) 2007-2008 Derek "The Fallen One" Logue
All rights reserved. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner.
JUST SAY NO TO THE

ABOMINABLE WALSH ACT!!!