U.S. v. Hall

Decision Date23 September 2008
Docket NumberNo. 5:08-CR-174.,5:08-CR-174.
Citation577 F.Supp.2d 610
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, v. David HALL, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

Lisa A. Peebles, Esq., Office of the Federal Public Defender-Syracuse Office, Districts of Northern New York & Vermont, Syracuse, NY, for Defendant.

Andrew T. Baxter, Office of the United States Attorney, Lisa M. Fletcher, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel, Syracuse, NY, for the United States of America.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

DAVID N. HURD, District Judge.

                                                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 612
                 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................. 613
                     A. Facts ................................................................... 613
                     B. The Federal Duty to Register as a Sex Offender .......................... 613
                     C. The Federal Criminal Penalty for Failure to Register .................... 614
                III. DISCUSSION ................................................................. 614
                     A. Motion to Dismiss ....................................................... 614
                        1. The Non-Implementation of SORNA in New York and Virginia ............. 614
                        2. The Ex Post Facto Clause .................................... 615
                        3. The Due Process Clause ............................................... 616
                        4. The Tenth Amendment .................................................. 616
                        5. The Non-Delegation Doctrine .......................................... 617
                        6. The Commerce Clause .................................................. 618
                           a. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) .......................................... 619
                           b. 42 U.S.C. § 16913 ............................................ 619
                     B. Cross-Motion for Discovery .............................................. 622
                 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................. 623
                
I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant David Hall ("defendant") is charged with one count of traveling in interstate commerce and thereafter knowingly failing to register and update his sex offender registration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

Defendant moves to dismiss the Indictment. The United States of America ("Government") opposes and moves for reciprocal discovery. Oral argument was heard on August 8, 2008.

II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts

On August 12, 2004, defendant was sentenced in Cayuga County Court to ten years probation after pleading guilty to Rape in the Third Degree in violation of New York State Penal Law, § 130.25. Defendant again plead guilty to a subsequent offense of Rape in the Third Degree on May 25, 2006 and was sentenced to one year imprisonment.

Defendant was required to register as a sex offender in New York and keep his registration current by way of regularly updating his registration and notifying the New York Sex Offender Registry of any change of address. Defendant completed two sex offender registration forms dated August 13, 2004 and June 13, 2006, respectively. Both registration forms indicate defendant was to be given a copy of the forms and notified of his obligation to continually register as a sex offender.

On July 11, 2006, defendant filed a Sex Offender Change of Address Form, thereby notifying the Registry of his new residence in Moravia, New York. An annual verification form was sent to defendant's new address on June 13, 2007, but the form was returned by the U.S. Post Office. Consequently, the New York Department of Criminal Justice Services notified the Moravia Village Police Department that defendant had not complied with his annual address verification.

Defendant's whereabouts were unknown until he applied for public assistance benefits in February of 2008. On February 26, 2008, a Social Services Investigator for the Cayuga County Department of Health and Human services interviewed defendant regarding his application for benefits. During the interview, defendant stated he had been living and working in Virginia before moving back to New York on February 22, 2008. An investigator with the Virginia Sex Offender Registry confirmed that defendant failed to register as a sex offender in the state of Virginia, and there is no record of defendant having updated his registry upon resuming his residence in New York.

On April 3, 2008, the Government filed a complaint charging defendant with failing to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act ("SORNA"), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, after traveling in interstate commerce in violation of the federal criminal penalty statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

On April 9, 2008, a grand jury indicted defendant on one count of knowingly failing to update his sex offender registration after traveling in interstate commerce as required by SORNA and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

B. The Federal Duty to Register as a Sex Offender

SORNA provides: "A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student." 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a). A "sex offender" is defined as any individual who is convicted of a sex offense under either state or federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 16911(1). Following a change of a sex offender's name, residence, employment, or student status, SORNA requires a sex offender notify the state in which he lives of such change(s). 42 U.S.C. § 16913(c).

Congress delegated to the Attorney General the authority to determine the applicability of SORNA to sex offenders convicted before the statute's enactment or prior to the implementation of the statute in a particular jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). On February 28, 2007, the Attorney General exercised this authority and designated SORNA applicable to sex offenders convicted of sex offenses before SORNA was enacted. 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2007). Further, on May 30, 2007, the Attorney General issued the National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification and explained that SORNA applies "to all sex offenders, including those convicted of their registration offenses prior to the enactment of SORNA or prior to particular jurisdictions' incorporation of the SORNA requirements into their [sex offender registry] programs." 72 Fed.Reg. 30228 (May 30, 2007) (emphasis added).

C. The Federal Criminal Penalty for Failure to Register

While § 16913 creates a sex offender's duty under federal law to register with state sex offender registries and continually update one's registration, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) serves as the enforcement mechanism for a sex offender's duty to register. Pursuant to § 2250(a), any sex offender who is required to register under SORNA and either was convicted of a federal sex offense or was convicted of a state sex offense and traveled in interstate commerce faces up to ten years in prison for knowingly failing to register or update his registration.

III. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss

Defendant moves to dismiss the Indictment on several grounds. First, defendant alleges that SORNA does not apply to him because New York and Virginia have not implemented the law. Second, defendant contends that punishment under the federal criminal statute would violate the Ex Post Facto clause of the Constitution. Third, defendant argues that punishment under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) violates his due process rights because he is unable to comply with SORNA. Fourth, defendant submits that SORNA violates the Tenth Amendment as an impermissible encroachment upon the states' sovereignty. Fifth, defendant contends SORNA violates the non-delegation doctrine. Finally, defendant argues that Congress lacks constitutional authority to compel individuals convicted of purely local sex offenses to register as sex offenders.

1. The Non-Implementation of SORNA in New York and Virginia

Defendant moves to dismiss the Indictment on the ground that SORNA does not apply to him because neither New York nor Virginia have implemented SORNA. Defendant contends that the Attorney General has not issued a rule making SORNA applicable in jurisdictions that have yet to implement the statute's requirements into their own sex offender registries. Further, defendant explains that both states lack procedures for the collection and dissemination of the information required under SORNA. Defendant argues that New York and Virginia are unable to fulfill SORNA's registration and notification requirements, and consequently, that he cannot be held criminally liable for failure to register with either states' sex offender registries as required by SORNA.

Although New York and Virginia have yet to implement SORNA, defendant nonetheless has a duty under federal law to maintain his sex offender registration with the states in which he resides. See United States v. Van Buren, No, 3:08-CR-198, 2008 WL 3414012, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2008); United States v. Senogles, 570 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1157-59 (D.Minn. 2008); United States v. Gould, 526 F.Supp.2d 538, 542 (D.Md.2007) As already explained, the Attorney General was vested with the authority to determine the applicability of SORNA to sex offenders convicted of sex offenses either prior to the enactment of SORNA or prior to the implementation of SORNA in a particular jurisdiction.1 See 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). Despite defendant's arguments to the contrary, the Attorney General has specified that SORNA applies to sex offenders whose conviction of a sex offense predates the enactment of SORNA, regardless of whether a jurisdiction has implemented SORNA's requirements. See 28 C.F.R. § 72.3 (2007); see also 72 Fed.Reg. 30228 (May 30, 2007).

According to his own statement during an eligibility interview for public assistance, defendant's failure to register as required by SORNA occurred in February of 2008...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States. v. Kebodeaux, 08-51185
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 12, 2011
    ...F. Supp. 2d 305, 315 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), rev'd, 591 F.3d 83, 89—91 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3487; United States v. Hall, 577 F. Supp. 2d 610, 623 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), rev'd sub nom. United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d at 89—91. Of these various cases upholding SORNA, the Ninth Circui......
  • U.S. v. Guzman, Docket No. 08-5561-cr.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 7, 2010
    ...registration requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 16913 exceed the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. United States v. Hall, 577 F.Supp.2d 610, 623 (N.D.N.Y.2008); United States v. Guzman, 582 F.Supp.2d 305, 312 (N.D.N.Y.2008); United States v. Hall, 588 F.Supp.2d 326, 329 (N.D.N......
  • United States v. Kebodeaux, 08-51185
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • July 14, 2011
    ...F. Supp. 2d 305, 315 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), rev'd, 591 F.3d 83, 89-91 (2d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3487; United States v. Hall, 577 F. Supp. 2d 610, 623 (N.D.N.Y. 2008), rev'd sub nom. United States v. Guzman, 591 F.3d at 89-91. Of these various cases upholding SORNA, the Ninth Circui......
  • U.S. v. Hernandez
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Michigan)
    • May 18, 2009
    ...court cases, United States v. Guzman, 582 F.Supp.2d 305 (N.D.N.Y.2008), app. pending, No. 08-5561 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Hall, 577 F.Supp.2d 610 (N.D.N.Y.2008), app. pending, No. 08-6004 (2d Cir.2008); United States v. Waybright, 561 F.Supp.2d 1154 (D.Mont.2008), app. pending, No. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT