After 15 Years, Does the Adam Walsh Act Need Rethinking?

President George W. Bush signs Adam Walsh Act into law July 27, 2006. Photo via America’s Most Wanted

On July 27, the US Marshals Service (USMS) issued a press release[i] celebrating the 15th anniversary of the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA).

But the Act continues to be controversial. Many states find it confusing or expensive to comply with. And, arguably, the additional scrutiny it places on registered sex offenders has had no impact on recidivism.

The requirement under the Act to place teens as young as 14 on sex offender registries, as well as the requirement to classify Registered Persons by offense rather than by risk has added an extra burden to lawmakers. That may be why only 18 states, four territories and 136 tribes have been in “substantial compliance” with the AWA guidelines[ii].

Texas rejected the AWA because authorities found it would cost them only $2 million to take the federal penalty for refusing to adopt the AWA guidelines, but $39 million to implement them.[iii]

Even among AWA-compliant states, laws vary greatly and are no less confusing and complex than before they adopted the AWA guidelines. In Ohio, the first state to adopt the AWA, the switch from risk-based to offense-based classification placed three times the number of Registrants into the “Tier 3” category, the category associated with high-risk offenders. This was a direct result of the AWA guidelines; no additional crimes were committed to cause this change.

The Ohio Supreme Court later declared SB 10, Ohio’s AWA compliance law, was punitive and violated constitutional protections against retroactive laws.[iv] As a result, Ohio has two separate registry guidelines, one for those convicted before January 1, 2008, and the other for those convicted after January 1, 2008.

Ohio wasted about $10 million in taxpayer dollars to defend this controversial law in the courts.[v] Ohio’s sentencing commission has since recommended Ohio return to a risk-based classification system, which would bring the state out-of-compliance with the AWA.[vi]

The act of granting registry compliance enforcement powers to the US Marshals Service (USMS) is a problem overlooked even among critics of the federal registry laws. Section 142 of the AWA allows for federal resources, including the USMS, to be used assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending those who fail to register.

Perhaps one reason why this practice is not heavily scrutinized is because it has become commonplace.

In the USMS press release, the Marshals boast of conducting over 4,000 compliance check operations on over 634,000 Registered Persons, arresting over 41,000 Registered Persons for “Failure To Register” (FTR) and over 5,000 for AWA violations.

According to the 2020 USMS annual report, the USMS still conducted 281 operations, involving 52,738 individual compliance checks during the pandemic.[vii] They are sometimes given names like “Operation Jessica”[viii] or “Operation River Valley Chill”[ix] and make local headlines, giving the appearance the public is somehow safer because the USMS are arresting people for failing to fill out some government paperwork.

However, a 2009 study found no correlation between failing to register and recidivism.[x]

Compliance checks are unnecessary and unconstitutional. They are often used by members of law enforcement as intimidation tools. As a Registered Person who has endured multiple compliance checks, I argue they should be declared unconstitutional.

At the least, the USMS should not be a part of these harassment campaigns.

In 2013, I was sitting down to my dinner table when I hear a loud bang on my door, as if someone was trying to break into my apartment. Upon opening the door, I was accosted by a US Marshal decked out in full riot gear, accompanied by a standard county deputy who looked like he wanted to be anywhere but my apartment at the moment.

The Marshal demanded to see my bedroom to confirm I lived there. I asked for a warrant. He told me he didn’t have one, so I refused entry. He threatened to return next week, so I replied if he doesn’t bring a warrant, he’ll still be denied entry.

After some rude words and gestures were exchanged, I slammed the door in his face. He did not return. Later in the week, the local news boasted of one arrest of a registrant for possessing firearms as the centerpiece of a compliance check the local sheriff has called “spring cleaning.”

I sued the US Marshals for harassment. I wanted to argue before the courts that the US Marshals Service is conducting a state-sponsored harassment campaign and that compliance checks themselves constitute a search that demands a warrant.

Though it failed, a subsequent compliance check did not try to intimidate me or ask to see my bedroom. I still refused to cooperate with them and demanded they leave.

Other than annoy me and make me angry and bitter at being forced to register, what purpose did this compliance check serve? A person desiring to reoffend will do so regardless of public registry or laws designed to make the lives of Registered Persons insufferable.

Most sex crimes occur at home, by someone the victim knows, and most sex offense arrests are of people with no prior sex offense record.[xi] Few on the registry reoffend, and a Registered Person is far more likely to be arrested for an FTR than for a new sexual offense.[xii]

Jill Levenson, a well-known scholar on sex offender issues and currently a professor at Barry University in South Florida, wrote in 2009:

Employment problems experienced by the RSO [Registered Sex Offender], and subsequent financial hardships, emerged as the most pressing issue identified by family members. The likelihood of housing disruption was correlated with residential restriction laws; larger buffer distances led to increased frequencies of housing crisis. Family members living with an RSO were more likely to experience threats and harassment by neighbors.

 Children of RSOs reportedly experienced adverse consequences including stigmatization and differential treatment by teachers and classmates. More than half had experienced ridicule, teasing, depression, anxiety, fear, or anger. Unintended consequences can impact family members’ ability to support RSOs in their efforts to avoid recidivism and successfully reintegrate.

Derek W. Logue

Fifteen years of state-sponsored harassment and intimidation of those who completed their sentences is nothing to boast about.

Derek W. Logue is a Nebraska registrant and activist for the rights of returning citizens, and founder of the sex offense education and reform website OnceFallen.com.

ENDNOTES

[i] https://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2021/072721a.htm

[ii] https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantially-implemented

[iii] https://wacotrib.com/news/texas-professionals-urge-state-not-to-join-national-sex-offender-registry/article_4407604c-2931-5c3b-9a0f-5c8f22e0af0f.html

[iv] https://www.acluohio.org/en/cases/adam-walsh-act-sb-10-sex-offender-registration-and-notification-cases

[v] https://vindyarchives.com/news/2011/nov/13/complying-with-walsh-act-costs-ohio–mil/?print

[vi] https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/state–regional-govt–politics/proposed-sex-offender-registry-changes-would-based-risk/P6Dm52UOWBAPf4kcVh8xgP/

[vii] https://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/annual-report-2020.pdf

[viii] https://www.sweetwaternow.com/one-arrested-after-officials-complete-registered-sex-offender-compliance-checks/

[ix] https://www.kq2.com/content/national/471308074.html

[x]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233097187_Failure_to_Register_as_a_Sex_Offender_Is_it_Associated_with_Recidivism

[xi] https://oncefallen.com/stranger-danger-myth/

[xii] https://oncefallen.com/recidivism-101/