[00:00] Introduction: Welcome to Registry Matters. This is an independent production. Our opinions are our own. We are thankful for the support of our patrons. You make what we do here possible. So, sit back and enjoy the conversation. And always remember, FYP.
[00:24] Andy: Recording live from FYP Studios East and West. Transmitting across the internet, this is episode 376 of Registry Matters. Good evening, Larry. How are you? I am nice and toasty this evening. Oh, it’s probably,
[00:39] Larry: is it murder hot yet? It’s the middle of May, huh? It’s not, but we have a continuing problem with the ventilation in our section of the building, and it’s not fully functioning today. So, it’s a little bit toasty. Isn’t that, you have that every
[00:54] Andy: year, don’t you?
[00:56] Larry: Yes, it’s been a continuing problem since I replaced the system. Shouldn’t that have solved the problems? You would think so, but they’re dealing with shysters.
[01:10] Andy: Of course, of course, of course. Well, be sure to head over and do the likes and the thumbs up and the subscribes and all those things over on YouTube or in your podcast app, all that stuff. Hey, so what are we doing tonight on this episode?
[01:27] Larry: I don’t know. I’ve been thinking about it all afternoon, and I haven’t come up with anything.
[01:31] Andy: All right. Well, then we’re just going to kick it?
[01:34] Larry: No, we have a decision from the Nevada Supreme Court. The issue in that case is where the PFR must complete their term of registration prior to becoming eligible for termination of lifetime supervision. Also, I’m working on an interesting case here in New Mexico with a PFR. He should be off the registry, but they’re keeping him on. We also have a submission from a listener and a last-minute comment and question from one of our patrons. So we’ve got enough to keep us going for hours and hours.
[02:11] Andy: Well, fabulous. And I don’t have a screen for it since you posted this at the last minute. All right. Well, hey there, Andy and Larry. Carl here in Missouri. Here’s a thought that might be worth mentioning on one of your podcasts. I was recently reminded of the Missouri Halloween sign case and the win against compelled speech. It got me thinking about a related issue I’m personally dealing with. This involves international Megan’s law and the 21-day travel notice requirement. I understand that the federal notice itself may be framed as agency-to-agency communication, U.S. authorities notifying a foreign government, which might limit direct constitutional challenges. However, in Missouri, I’m required to personally complete and submit a travel notification form through the Missouri State Highway Patrol before I can travel overseas. Filling out this form is where my concern comes in. On my first trip overseas to see my wife and children, I traveled with a letter from the sheriff’s department and had no issues. On a later trip, after being required to complete this form, I was denied entry into my wife’s country, permanently banned for life, then sent back to the U.S. Because of that experience, I know now that submitting this form directly results in notification through Angel Watch to the destination country and effectively prevents me from seeing my family. So my question is whether the requirement to fill out this form could be viewed as compelled speech. I’m being required under threat of federal penalties to provide information that I know will be used to restrict my ability to travel and maintain familial relationships. If I don’t submit the form, I risk prosecution for failure to notify the federal government. If I do submit it, I trigger consequences that have already resulted in a lifetime ban from my wife and children’s country. In other words, it feels like I’m being forced to participate in the very process that deprives me of my ability to travel and maintain family unity. Is there any potential argument here, similar to the Missouri Halloween sign case, that specifically filling out this form is unconstitutional compelled speech rather than simply a regulatory reporting requirement?
[04:24] Larry: That is. That’s why I threw it in there at the last moment. And the answer is that since it is apparently required by Missouri statute, he really has no choice but to submit the form because I’m just about certain they’ve had him initial that he understands that requirement when he registers and it’s a part of their statutory scheme. So he’s risking state prosecution and potentially federal prosecution. But his question is really more nuanced. He wants to know if his being compelled to speak that way is unconstitutional. That’s why I interpret the question. Is that your interpretation?
[05:12] Andy: I think that’s fair. Yeah. I mean, they’re telling him to fill it out and then they’re using it against him, obviously. And then if he doesn’t fill it out, then he’s going to end up in shackles and in prison.
[05:22] Larry: See, there’s an attorney that tends to overplay the card of the compelled speech argument. We can compel people to speak as a government. There’s no prohibition on compelling someone to speak. For example, when you operate your vehicle and have visual corrective lenses necessary, you must speak to the officer with your driver’s license. If you don’t comply, you’re not going to be able to drive. You take the driver’s license test and are required to wear glasses if needed. They ask you if you require corrective lenses.
[06:15] Andy: My kid’s driver’s license is vertical.
[06:18] Larry: We compel minors to speak in certain situations, like when they’re carrying an infectious disease and need to be quarantined. But the argument is that his constitutional rights are being violated because of compelled speech. He argues he has a right to travel, but then turns around and says they didn’t admit him based on this compelled speech. Well, you don’t have the right to be admitted everywhere. So the question is whether this compelled speech is narrowly tailored enough to pass constitutional muster if challenged seriously. Compelled speech in itself isn’t unconstitutional, but since it applies to everyone on the registry without narrow tailoring, there might be an issue. If I were him and had a large bank account, I would go talk to a lawyer. A very big one—six figures—to mount a constitutional challenge on the failure to narrowly tailor compelled speech. You can’t pretend all compelled speech is unconstitutional because it isn’t. But if you take that tag, there might be some leverage gained here that could force the legislature to narrow this requirement. Then the next question would be: If they were more narrowly tailored, would you still fit within the contours of protecting minors? Is your offense against a minor? How long ago was it? If you offended against a minor three years ago or five years ago, you’re going to be deemed riskier than someone with a 25- or 30-year-old conviction that wasn’t against a minor.
[08:43] Andy: Isn’t that part of what the 21-day notice is about, that the crime involves someone, a minor?
[08:51] Larry: Well, those who are mandatory, those are who the federal law mandatorily sweeps in. That doesn’t stop the states from reporting everyone’s.
[08:59] Andy: I see. Okay. Got it.
[09:01] Larry: I’m guessing Missouri requires every PFR to do that. They don’t do any narrow tailoring. And that’s where the challenge would ensue. You would say they’re not narrowly tailoring this to a select group of PFRs.
[09:16] Andy: I understand what you’re saying. So the 20,000, whatever that number is in Missouri, if anyone decided to step foot out of the country, every one of them has to fill out the paperwork?
[09:27] Larry: That’s my guess. And we didn’t have enough pre-show prep with this because this came in last minute. I threw it in without any research. But I’m assuming that since legislators are so hesitant to narrowly tailor because they’re afraid they’re going to be perceived as weak on PFRs and pro-PFR, I doubt there’s any narrow tailoring in it. And that’s where your constitutional challenges need to be zeroed in on, is the failure to narrowly tailor. You can do almost anything if you narrowly tailor it based on sound reasons. And I don’t think anyone can credibly argue that trying to protect citizens of foreign nations from PFRs, there’s nothing wrong with that. But then we need to narrow a framework that actually targets the people who pose such a risk, who might pose such an elevated risk, that they would be forced to do this disclosure and not anyone who’s just simply required to register.
[10:24] Andy: Interesting. Well, Carl, sorry to cut you off. I guess it’s not completely flushing out the issue, right? No. You gave him an avenue.
[10:33] Larry: Yes. But see, what most people are hoping for—and I don’t know, I can’t speak for Carl—but most people are hoping that there’s some organization that will just swoop in with gobs of money and fund this. That organization is largely going to be you. And when you are willing to put your money on the table, like what happened in the West Virginia challenges, we had somebody who was willing to cough up their own dollars for the challenge. When you do that…
[11:06] Andy: You put your name on it too, right?
[11:07] Larry: That’s correct. When you do that, you will find yourself being a lot more warmly received by the legal profession rather than going with your hat in hand and saying, “Help me, I’m being abused.” Right? That makes sense too.
[11:25] Andy: Interesting. Very cool though. All right. Well then let’s move over to this one. It’s a letter from a patron in Florida and I don’t know if he’s still a patron. He was a patron and then he went on a little handful of year vacation. This is from Ryan. He says, “I’m trying to figure out where I can go. A friend of mine said Washington state has housing for homeless SOs, but he was able to get a job quartering cars. And he even said he didn’t have to register vehicles. I don’t know how that works since I always assume it’s the case nationally, but apparently every state is different. The reason I’m thinking about this is because I can only make about $500 a month. I can’t afford to move to another state and I’m stuck in Florida. If I take my savings and go, I have a chance to get on my feet somewhere else. But if I fail in the process, I don’t want to end up in prison because I’m homeless. That’s the fear. Living is a tolerance. I’ve looked at New York. I just assume I’d be classified as a level one. Vermont looks promising too, though it’s tiny and probably doesn’t have many jobs. Maybe a good place to retire. Eventually, New York City scares me on the affordability side, so I’ll probably have to live in some bad spots when I first arrive anywhere because of finances. And that opens up another worry. Oh, a Chomo lives down the road; time to kill him here in Tallahassee. The job market is brutal. I live in a right-to-work state and it ain’t easy getting jobs here. McDonald’s won’t hire PFRs. There are no jobs. I can’t get a job here. It’s obviously hard to get one, and there aren’t any full-time unskilled jobs. I’m competing against college students for the part-time ones. I’ve been working on IT but there aren’t jobs here unless I go through state contracts, and it’s very unlikely they’d let me compete for one. I’ve applied to around 700 jobs in the past two years and gotten about five interviews. None of them have hired me. I did manage one job though through a friend part-time, but it was nice until I got a VOP and the guy said he wouldn’t hire me back. Right now the market is even worse because college is out of session and most places are closed. I just filled out paperwork for day labor. I need to show up at 6 a.m. Monday if the place I’m living will even let me leave that early. Hopefully, I can pull in a few hundred bucks next week but I honestly don’t know if I can handle the work.
[13:39] Larry: That’s brutal.
[13:41] Andy: It is.
[13:42] Larry: That is totally brutal. If a person’s trying to make it in the United States, I don’t care how low the cost of living is. If you’re bringing in $500 a month, that’s impossible. You’d have to be living in a mother-in-law’s basement somewhere and paying nothing. That would be your survival money to pay for transportation and food. So that’s brutal.
But on the first part where he says that they’ll have to register vehicles, and he assumed it was a national law but every state is different. He’s correct about that. The federal recommendations in terms of a substantially compliant registry are only recommendations. That’s all they are. They have no binding power. They’re not binding in any way on the states. In fact, if any state wants to disband their registry tomorrow, they could do that. So everything that he’s complaining about related to registration is all state-driven.
Now, being that you said he’s in Florida, you would agree with me that that’s a pretty tough state for registrants, right?
[14:51] Andy: I mean, they all seem to be driving to be the worstest there between Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas. Like they all kind of like are in the running for the worst. But Florida seems to consistently win.
[15:03] Larry: So but yeah, I would. I mean he’s on the right pathway with trying to look around. I’m a little troubled by something I said about housing for homeless SOs. I’m curious to know more about that. Because I haven’t been to Seattle and Portland and those places for about 10 years. I think 2016, 2017 was the last time I was there. But they had massive homelessness there and it hasn’t gotten much better I don’t think. So if you’re thinking it’s a liberal panacea that they’ve got all the answers, I think you need to reconsider that because some of these liberal places that portray themselves as being the panacea and the mecca of good things—they’re not. They’re just not. So I’d be delighted to hear anything about particular specialized housing for homeless SOs in Washington.
[16:00] Andy: No, the only thing that I think he might be conflating is that we’re probably in Florida where it’s just outright banned. However, in maybe Washington state and those places up there, at least it isn’t just flat out banned. They might not have anything available but you’re not just said no at the door. That’s just my guess.
[16:18] Larry: And then in terms of applying for 700 jobs. Now this is almost a true story. It has a little bit of spin on it, but I’ve been in that position where I was virtually homeless. Due to my phone proclivities, the telephone company back in the day when we only had one source for phones blacklisted me because of my misuse of the phone.
[16:47] Andy: I didn’t know that one.
[16:48] Larry: Yeah, so they wouldn’t provide me with service. Remember the Bell system was all unified back then.
[16:55] Andy: Yes, yes, yes.
[16:56] Larry: So whether a southern bell or mountain bell or pacific taluses or whatever they call a Michigan bell. They were all tied together. And I was blacklisted. So it got to the point that I had to leave payphone numbers and sit by the payphone. You had to find one, and it wasn’t near the Dan Ryan Expressway. That was relatively secluded. And you had to hope somebody would call. And so my reason for telling that story is I want to know: Do you actually answer your phone? Or do you tremble in terror when you see an unknown number? Because as an employer, when I call a person, I don’t want you to come see me. I’m going to talk to you first; I want to weed you out by talking to you. I want to find out if you can communicate effectively, if you can answer questions that you are not prepared for and if you have a pleasant attitude and demeanor. And I can do that in five or ten minutes on the phone. If you make me work at getting a hold of you, I’m not interested now. I’ve had to alter that a little bit in recent years because post-pandemic you can’t find anybody when you run ads, so I’ve had to moderate my rigid view about hiring people, but I never want to interview you in person until I’ve talked to you on the phone. And if you’re not answering your phone, I would encourage you to start doing that. If it’s a number you don’t want to talk to and you don’t like what you hear, there’s a little red circular button at the bottom of it; press it and the call will go away.
[18:35] Andy: Mine doesn’t have that red button, Larry.
[18:38] Larry: It doesn’t. And another thing I can tell you to help you when you answer your phone: If you don’t recognize the number, do not say hello. Whatever you do, most calls that are undesirable are driven by interactive AI and the AI is looking for “hello.” If you say hello, it will immediately start its script. If you say something other than hello like any human on the line would, sometimes it starts anyway because it detects the call is engaged, but you don’t have to say hello and give it an immediate invite to start talking and reading its script and going through the junk it goes through. Another thing I do if I get an unwanted call is press numerous buttons; sometimes I hit a button that transfers it to a live person which I don’t want, but I press the button because their systems are analyzing your phone for how well it’s answered and what it gets. If you give it nothing but background noise, I want that computer if it’s smart enough to realize it’s getting nothing but background noise to rate my phone as an undesirable contact number. But I answer every time my phone rings; I pick it up every time if I can possibly do it. And I think if you try that, you might find you’re getting more calls than what you think about your job applications.
[19:57] Andy: Do you have any thoughts about the 700 job applications in the past two years?
[20:01] Larry: It seems a lot. Can you imagine how many that is? There are 52 weeks in a year, right? So if you’re applying almost daily, that’s an awful lot of applications.
[20:19] Andy: I’m thinking those are through job boards like Indeed and you could be mass-submitting them. You could probably submit 10 jobs a minute if you just queued them up and clicked “apply” repeatedly.
[20:36] Larry: I will certainly be the first to acknowledge that how people look for work has changed dramatically, and how employers screen candidates is different. I cannot know exactly how major operations are being done because I’m not in the workforce at that level, but it’s changed dramatically. One thing that hasn’t changed is that they want an employee who is dependable, has a good work ethic, and has good communication skills; someone who isn’t a slacker. When you go in after being disconnected from the workforce for a long time, like Prince seems to be, I truly don’t know how to overcome that stigma.
[21:20] Andy: Yes, yes, yes. Um, I want to bring up two things. One is about him being a self-taught computer programmer. On one hand, it’s great because he’s self-taught and doesn’t have college debt, but on the other hand, he doesn’t have much to put down on paper that says he has the experience or training to do the job. Maybe that gets him flushed down the toilet; I don’t know.
[21:47] Larry: Well, that’s all above my pay grade in terms of what he knows how to do in that profession because I’m probably about one step above the bottom on understanding that field.
[21:58] Andy: The other thing I want to bring up is, and I’m not trying to bag on the guy, but he said he got a VOP, which I believe is a violation of probation. That’s
[22:05] Larry: what I interpreted.
[22:05] Andy: Wouldn’t that put a pretty big black eye on someone trying to apply for jobs?
[22:12] Larry: It suggests he’s under active supervision, and that would definitely be detrimental if you’re still under supervision.
[22:24] Andy: Good point.
[22:26] Announcer: You a first-time listener of Registry Matters? Well, then make us part of your daily routine and subscribe today. Just search for Registry Matters through your favorite podcast app, hit the subscribe button, and you’re off to the races. You can now enjoy hours of sarcasm and snark from Andy and Larry on a weekly basis. Oh, and there’s some excellent information thrown in there too. Subscribing also encourages others to get on the bandwagon and become regular Registry Matters listeners. So what are you waiting for? Subscribe to Registry Matters right now. Help us keep fighting and continue to say FYPD.
[23:13] Andy: All right, then we shall continue moving along to this thing from the Nevada Supreme Court. This is an interesting case, uh, from as I said, the Nevada Supreme Court. The name of the case is Del Toro versus State. I read it today, Larry. I read it while I was underneath the car changing the oil, and it’s bizarre for sure.
[23:35] Larry: No wait, you said you were doing what? Would you read it?
[23:39] Andy: I was underneath the car changing the oil. It’s that time when the little dingy thing goes off in the car, and it’s time to change the oil. So while I was under there, I was reading it.
[23:47] Larry: All righty, then. So I gotta see a picture of that next time. So I’ll work on that. The Nevada Supreme Court addressed a recurring statutory interpretation question. The question involves the intersection of lifetime supervision for PFRs and PFR offender registration. Edward Del Toro appealed an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County denying his petition for release from lifetime supervision.
[24:22] Andy: So, del toro was convicted in 2012 of attempted lewdness with a minor under the age of 14. He was classified as a tier 2 PFR, which requires him to register for 25 years under Nevada law. After being discharged from probation in 2016, he was placed under lifetime supervision as required for certain PFR-type offenses. Twelve years after his conviction, he petitioned for release from lifetime supervision, claiming he had satisfied statutory requirements: He had complied with registration obligations, had not been convicted of a subsequent offense for more than 10 years, and was assessed as a low risk to re-offend.
[25:07] Larry: Separate from the registration requirement itself, Nevada law requires a special sentence of lifetime supervision for certain PFRs. Such supervision involves daily monitoring of their lives, including their whereabouts (that means GPS), interactions, and recreational activities to ensure they conform their behavior to individualized conditions and activity restraints. Lifetime supervision is distinct from and begins after any term of imprisonment, period of release on parole, or period of probation. So you gotta understand this: You get out of prison, you do your probation or parole, and then you go on lifetime supervision. The purpose of lifetime supervision is to quote “help law enforcement solve crimes and oversee dangerous sexual predators as well as to prevent offenders from engaging in activities that endanger the public.”
[26:06] Andy: You’re saying it’s a totally separate requirement in addition to all other punishment and registration.
[26:12] Larry: Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
[26:13] Andy: All right. Well, then what are the requirements to be terminated from lifetime supervision besides death?
[26:21] Larry: As a matter of law, offenders are entitled to release from lifetime supervision if at the time of petition they have satisfied three requirements. First, the offender must have complied with the provisions of the registration statute. Now remember what I just said—complied with the provisions of the registration statute because that turns very critical. Second, the offender must not have been convicted of an offense that poses a threat to the safety or well-being of others for an interval of at least 10 consecutive years after the person’s last conviction or release from incarceration, whichever occurs later. And third, the offender must be deemed not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others as determined by a licensed clinical professional who has received training and treatment of PFRs if released from lifetime supervision. They cannot pose any threat to others. So that is a pretty high standard.
[27:20] Andy: All right. Well, then what did the court do in response to the petition?
[27:25] Larry: The 8th Judicial District Court, which is in Clark County, reviewed the petition. The state opposed the release from registration. They argued that compliance with registration requirements of Nevada Revised Statutory 176.0931 subsection 3 requires completion of the full 25-year registration period for tier 2 offenders. The district court accepted this interpretation and denied the petition solely on that basis—that the appellant had not completed his entire registration term.
[28:00] Andy: And of course, Del Toro appealed? He did. So wait, you just stated a moment ago that NRS 176.0931 subsection 3 requires completion of the full 25-year registration period for tier 2 offenders. The state opposed the release of PFRs from lifetime supervision if they satisfy three requirements. One requirement is compliance with statutory registration provisions. It seems logical to me that they be released from lifetime supervision. Why would they not be able to have their registration requirements terminated? After all, it’s a civil regulatory requirement, isn’t it? It’s not punishment. If their supervision requirement can be terminated, why not the civil regulatory requirement?
[28:42] Larry: Well, you’ve kind of zeroed in on what the question is for the court. It’s a good question. And this appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court considered where the PFRs must register for their full registration period under that section before the other section required registration is deemed satisfied and the offender becomes eligible for release from lifetime supervision. So you’ve got these two competing masters. One is the registry, and the state has said, well, we’d be happy to talk about getting him off lifetime supervision, but he’s got to get off registration first. I mean, you should be able to admit that that’s funny.
[29:21] Andy: No, I’m not going to admit that’s funny. So that’s definitely a quagmire. Honestly, the state’s read here is kind of delusional. What’s the standard of review in this kind of case? Did you say delusional? Is that kind of like Delilah that has the radio show? No, this is delusional.
[29:46] Larry: Okay. All right. So the standard of review is the question. Since it’s statutory interpretation, the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes de novo, meaning a brand new review with no deference to what the district court had decided.
[30:05] Andy: Del Toro argued that he has complied with registration requirements for purposes of NRS 176.0931, because he has been continuously registered since his conviction through petitioning for release from lifetime supervision. Moreover, Del Toro argued because NRS 176.0931 provides that registration obligations persist even after release from lifetime supervision, completion of the entire registration term cannot be a predicate to release. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. What did the state say in response? Well,
[30:41] Larry: I agree with you, but that wasn’t the state’s position.
[30:45] Andy: Of course it wasn’t. So this case turns on the meaning of “complied with,” and that’s NRS 176.0931. Section 3A uses “complied” but does not define it. So what does “complied” mean? Well, that’s what
[31:04] Larry: the question was before the court. Now, this is why people like my senator would say, well, I don’t know. He was so particular about defining every word to make sure there was not a question about what “complied with” meant later. But the court had to do it. So the court stated, we therefore look to the dictionary definition to determine its natural meaning. Comply means to do what is required or requested to conform, submit, or adapt to a command, demand requirement, et cetera. And they cited Black’s Law Dictionary, 12th edition, 2024. By this definition, one can comply with a requirement for a certain amount of time without completing that requirement. And that’s the key to this case. He did comply with registration. He just didn’t complete it. Okay.
[31:58] Andy: They followed by stating, on the other hand, to do what is required may entail fulfilling the requirement. The definition does not have an intrinsic temporal element, and NRS 176.0931(3A) does not provide one. Thus, looking to its plain meaning neither confirms nor dispels the state’s interpretation of “complied” to mean complete. Now, how did they square that circle? Well,
[32:27] Larry: They stated that NRS 176.0931(3A), subsection four, states that a person who is released from lifetime supervision remains subject to the provisions of registration as a PFR. Now, if this language is in the statute—I didn’t go look at it, but I’m sure the court did. This language indicates that Del Toro’s interpretation is the intended one, because otherwise there would never be a provision for a person in that position. If an offender were required to complete the full registration term before becoming a PFR, they wouldn’t need this provision. If an offender were required to complete the full registration term before being eligible for release from lifetime supervision, the offender would no longer be subject to the registration mandate. Thus, reading “complied” in that section to mean “completed” would render that section meaningless, said the court.
[33:19] Andy: The court correctly noted that retaining the registration requirement for a released offender necessarily means that an offender who has not yet satisfied the entire registration term is eligible for release from lifetime supervision. And this result is consistent with the policy motivations behind registration and lifetime supervision. That is, releasing an offender from supervision reduces restrictions on their freedom where they have demonstrated rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Meanwhile, continuing to register assists law enforcement efforts and promotes community safety.
[33:54] Larry: Yep, they said that, and they also stated adopting the state’s interpretation would read into Nevada Revised Statute blah blah blah. This is a beautiful example of textualism. The text is there; they went by the text. If they had wanted it to be the case otherwise, they would have said so. So textualism can sometimes yield great outcomes.
[34:42] Andy: Well, this seems like a nice win for PFRs, Larry, and I’ll read the final paragraph. The court stated, thus, evaluating the statute as a whole, we conclude that the registration requirements under NRS 176.0931 subsection 3 do not mandate that an offender complete registration for the entire registration period delineated by NRS 179D.490. For purposes of meeting the release from supervision requirements, an offender need only show conformance to registration requirements through the time of petitioning. Here, the district court denied Del Toro’s petition for release from lifetime supervision because he had not yet registered for 25 years as mandated by NRS 179D.490 subsection 2B. Because that is not required by NRS 176.0931, we conclude that the district court erred. We therefore reverse the district court’s order denying Del Toro’s petition and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[35:53] Larry: And the icing on the cake is the next paragraph. They stated, we hold that NRS 176.0931 does not require completion of that term for an offender to be eligible for release from lifetime supervision. The statutes are not mutually exclusive. The registration obligation persists even if an offender is released from lifetime supervision. Accordingly, an offender is eligible for release from lifetime supervision under law if they have complied with the statute or registration requirements up to the time of petitioning for release. You know what would be funny? If they change the law now because they could, but I don’t think they will, but they could.
[36:40] Andy: Why don’t you think that they will? They do it every other time.
[36:43] Larry: But I’m saying that they would vindictively change the law to exclude these people and say they would adopt the state’s position. But that would mean that no one would ever get off because if you have to complete registration to get off lifetime supervision, then the state would be funding the supervision of PFRs in perpetuity. I don’t think they’ll do that. It would be funny if they did.
[37:07] Andy: Do you think they’ll appeal? This is the Supreme Court, so there’s nothing more for them to do. They’re done appealing, right?
[37:12] Larry: There’s nowhere for them to go. This is not a federal question, so there’s nothing left. This is the end of the line for them. Does this impact other people or just this dude? I know this is going to make it a whole lot better for a lot of people who have been told that they can’t get off the registry. This decision is now published out in the legal community, so people wanting to get off lifetime supervision should cite to this case. The lawyers will be gobbling up your money to say, hey, I can get you off lifetime supervision now because of Del Toro’s decision. So it’s really good news.
[37:47] Andy: You can’t just slip a $100 bill under the judge’s door with this case and say, “Release me?”
[37:57] Larry: No, you still have to go through the court the way I read the law. God.
[38:02] Andy: No fun. All right. Well, then let’s head over to this New Mexico case. You’re working on a case to get a person off of the New Mexico registry pro bono, aren’t you?
[38:13] Larry: I am. And I told you it’s a great business model.
[38:15] Andy: It sounds like you got a guy that’s willing to pay you gobs of money versus someone that’s going to pay you no money, and you opt for the no money. This is the inverse of the Elon Musk plan.
[38:24] Larry: Well, but as I explained in the pre-show, the gobs case is going to require a lot of work and a lot of dedication and time because I want to do a quality job. In this case, all I had to do was compose the letter, and we think the letter will work. And it’s a one-and-done situation. And he’s been so abused that I just can’t see this continue to happen.
[38:44] Andy: Really, I’m just jerking your chain. I know you’re a good dude. So we will refer to him without using his actual name. This letter constitutes a formal request for the Department of Public Safety to remove John Doe, whose date of birth is [redacted], from the New Mexico PFR Registry and all related electronic publishing components of the registry. Pursuant to the statutory requirements of New Mexico’s PFR Registration and Notification Act, also known as SORNA, Mr. Doe is not required to register and should be immediately removed from the registry and the New Mexico DPS website. Tell us about Mr. Doe.
[39:27] Larry: Mr. Doe’s sex offenses arose in March of 2028. He was charged with four counts, all three felonies, which is the lowest felony classification. Counts one through three were criminal sexual penetration of a minor, age 13 to 18, and I don’t know the exact age but the person was under 18. Count four was one charge of criminal sexual conduct of a minor. On October 4th, 2002, Mr. Doe was sentenced to serve 18 months on each count, with all counts to be served concurrently. Can you imagine that? Eighteen months for four sex crimes, isn’t that—
[40:02] Andy: hilarious? Yeah, and concurrent means at the same time, not one after another, so it’s 18 months total, not 18 months times four.
[40:09] Larry: Yes, it serves, served in, and they’re all part of one sentence, so he had 18 months total, not 18 months times four. And it’s not a serious enough offense for defense back then, I don’t think those offenses are now either, but it would be 50% good time, so he would have had to do nine months in incarceration.
[40:26] Andy: Wow, only nine months, wow, that’s funny. So, of course, according to the judgment and his order of probation attached, Mr. Doe initially served 120 days of confinement at the county detention center. His confinement period ended on December 4th, 2002, his probation commenced the next day on December 5th, and ended on February 4th, 2004. New Mexico has this unique aspect of the registration law that looks at when a person’s sentence terminates to determine which registration scheme they fall into. This is just like Georgia too. When did Mr. Doe’s sentence terminate?
[41:03] Larry: Well, pursuant to New Mexico law, his sentence and all jurisdiction in his case ended on December 5th, 2004, putting him in version one.
[41:13] Andy: All right, and so, okay, so that’s version one. Where were his registration obligations supposed to be?
[41:20] Larry: Well, they would have been, I’m sorry, what were they? They would have been required under version one, which has two brackets, the 10-year and the 20-year, both of which require annual reporting. It’s not based on how much they like you; it depends on the statutory assignment of the offense, so it’s a categorical approach. For his offenses, he would have been in the 20-year bracket, required to register annually for 20 years. But based on Doe’s date of conviction and the termination of his probation jurisdiction, Mr. Doe did not fall under the jurisdiction of version two amendments that took effect in July 2005. Those amendments only applied to individuals who were in prison or on probation or parole as of July 2005.
[42:08] Andy: That kind of squeaked in there. So since you basically wrote it, what is the New Mexico registration law? How does it work?
[42:17] Larry: Well, in order for a person to be required to register in New Mexico, he or she must have a conviction for a sex offense in New Mexico, or an equivalent. Now that’s key— not substantially similar, not anything else, but it’s equivalent. If it’s from another jurisdiction, it has to be an equivalent as well. Further, to determine if the registration applies to a particular individual, a determination must be made as to which version of the SORNA law applies. And we have three main iterations. The first version applies to anyone who had completed the totality of their sentence prior to July 1, 2005. That’s where he falls because he got off prior to July 1, 2005. Not out of prison, but you’ve got to finish all obligations.
[43:34] Larry: The second version applies to anyone convicted on or after July 1, 2005, and to those that were still serving any portion of their sentence on that date. So they got swept up. Now just think about how funny this would have been. You were in a 10-year track on June 30th of 2005, and then they realigned some of those into the more serious track. On July 1, you went from 10 years, once a year, to lifetime registration, four times a year.
[43:41] Andy: I mean, that’s how anything like that works. Like there’s a one-day thing that makes your life shitty versus not so shitty.
[43:52] Larry: The third version applies to anyone convicted on or after July 1, 2013. I wanted it to be for the commission date, but I couldn’t get that into the language. I got pushed back on that. So it was convicted after July 1, 2013. And that’s the third version.
[44:00] Andy: Now, based on the dates that you just talked about, the only potentially relevant SORNA offense conviction of Mr. Doe was his conviction in 2002. The date of that offense was March 8, 2002. And Mr. Doe completed all imposed obligations for that offense on February 4th of 2004. Isn’t he being harmed?
[44:21] Larry: Yes, he is very much being harmed. They have unlawfully imposed SORNA 2 on Mr. Doe. And to remedy these issues, we requested that within 15 days of receiving the letter, the DPS issue a determination that Mr. Doe was not required to register pursuant to New Mexico SORNA law. In interim, we also requested that the DPS immediately suspend the public dissemination of Mr. Doe’s personal information through the department’s PFR website.
[44:47] Andy: So what are the key differences between SORNA 1 and SORNA 2?
[44:51] Larry: The big difference is the duration and quarterly reporting requirements. SORNA 2 mandates registration every 99 days, whereas for life under SORNA 1, it’s once a year for either 20 years or 10 years—20 years in Doe’s case. Additionally, there are some extra disclosures required under SORNA 2, such as internet identifiers, which aren’t needed under SORNA 1. The funniest thing about the entire affair with Mr. Doe is that they prosecuted him for failing to comply with a 90-day reporting requirement that doesn’t even apply to him.
[45:29] Andy: Like $5 compensation or are we talking good cash compensation?
[45:34] Larry: Well, I’m not going to be able to train other than as an advisor, but if we can get him off the registry, I would love to see him compensated because they’ve been horrendously mean to him. This particular county, which is in a more conservative part of the state, has imposed stuff on him that doesn’t exist in law and threatened him over and over again with federal prosecution. I told him to thumb his nose at that. If you don’t travel outside the state, the feds can never prosecute you. They’ve just been really shitty to him.
[46:14] Andy: Well, do you think they know that they’re in the wrong and they don’t have a way out, so they’re being continually shitty? That would be the legal term, I suppose. Do you think that they’re doing that because they know they’re in the wrong?
[46:28] Larry: I always hate to say that about anybody who wears a law enforcement badge, because it’s such a tough job with what they deal with. I mean, I know that they get criticized for being at Dunkin’ Donuts, but it’s a tough job getting into family disputes and all the things that they do. But if you don’t understand your job, seek guidance. There are people out there who will help you and understand your job better. Some of them just enjoy imposing their will on individuals because they’re in a powerful position with a badge and gun. If we could screen those people out through psychological assessments, my job is merely to enforce the law, not make it. Sometimes they think they can make the law, like what happened with the sheriff in Butts County, Georgia, who was shut down for overstepping his bounds. The same thing happened in Spalding County, but he didn’t fight as much. These people might want the law to say something different, but it’s not their decision to think everyone should follow a specific version of the law. They’re not under the same law; there are three versions. It’s not your job to decide which one someone should follow. You get paid to enforce what is required, not impose your own will.
[48:10] Andy: I wonder if that isn’t a reason why we, as those who wear the uniform and impose these things, shouldn’t be under higher levels of scrutiny to ensure this doesn’t happen. Not because of extra baggage, but because you have guns, badges, handcuffs, and can put people in inescapable containers. You should have extra supervision against you as well.
[48:37] Larry: I would agree with that. But the question is, how do we do it? And who does the supervision? Because in this case, it’s the sheriff who’s an independent elected official. And that sheriff, he or she only answers to the voters of the jurisdiction. So you wouldn’t be able to create a body that would usurp the sheriff’s authority unless you change the guidelines that sheriffs operate. They’re pretty powerful in Georgia as well. And in Mexico and Georgia, they’re practically the king of the county. Yeah, I’m with you.
[49:07] Andy: How likely do you think it is that you guys will prevail?
[49:11] Larry: I think the odds being that the law is on our side, I think we’re likely to get him off the registry. And he’s already asked if I’ll help him with the civil litigation. I told him only in referral and consultation, because this is not what I do. But I sure hope he gets some compensation for what they’ve put him through.
[49:30] Andy: And if he does, if you guys do win, won’t they be extra pissed off?
[49:36] Larry: They will be, but if they have to release him from the registry, unless he’s stupid enough to go out and commit a crime, what else are they going to do? They have to let him go.
[49:44] Andy: I don’t know. They just pull you over and start bashing your taillights and say, oh, your taillights are out. I mean, I’m just thinking of what you see in movies and gangster stuff.
[49:54] Larry: Well, I suppose that’s possible. But I’m hoping if he gets off the registry, he could get out of that county because it’s not a place I’d want to live.
[50:01] Andy: I totally understand. Well, I hope you guys win. And what kind of timeline are we talking about for the next episode? Are we looking at a year from now?
[50:09] Larry: I think they’re going to make a decision on this letter within 30 days. We asked for 15 days, but I think they’ll decide whether to terminate his registration obligation very soon because it’s really crystal clear. The only thing they can argue is that he didn’t complete a period of parole, which would have rolled him into the 2025 key date. But that’s where they don’t understand the law: you only do parole in the state if you serve prison time. He served his time in county jail.
[50:38] Andy: I see. Yeah, because there’s less than a year.
[50:41] Larry: Well, that’s not to bury here. It could be greater than a year if they mandate it being served in the county facility. You don’t trigger unless you get a New Mexico Corrections Department number. So they may have misread the case. They may just have assumed he would have had a one-year parole period for 43 felonies, which would have rolled him into 2025 past the key date. And that’s probably what they’re thinking. If they think he has to register under SORNA because they believe he was actually on supervision after July 1 and he wasn’t. Interesting. Fascinating.
[51:29] Andy: I hope you guys win for sure.
[51:32] Larry: Well, I hope for his sake that he can move forward with his life. He’s not an old codger yet and has some potential to make some good money. He’s grossly underemployed because of all the baggage from the registry and all these run-ins with the court. If you look him up on the court website, he has like five cases in the last seven years. They were just throwing cases at him.
[51:58] Andy: Well, anything else before we head out?
[52:00] Larry: No, I think we had a fun episode. I think we gave good news today for everybody.
[52:05] Andy: It’s a first. We should mark this as the first episode of Registry Matters where everything was hat. Well, not everything, but we had two things that were positive. That’s right. Hey, I want to welcome back a patron. You may know a guy who lives in southeast Georgia in one of the most conservative counties ever. He used to be employed by FYP education. Yes, I’ve heard of it. He returned as a patron at the level when those $1400 stimulus checks were being sent out.
[52:34] Larry: Stimulus?
[52:35] Andy: That’s right. I was thinking it started with a D. Thank you for coming back, Joey.
[52:40] Larry: It’s 1414 hundred monthly, right?
[52:43] Andy: Correct. We’ll head over to registrymatters.ceo for show notes and links to go everywhere like FYPEducation to find the transcript, etc. Email us at registrymatterscast@gmail.com. You can leave an old-fashioned voicemail message at 747-227-4477. And of course, like everyone that’s listening here tonight, you can join us over on patreon.com/registrymatters. And that is so very much appreciated for those that support content creators like Larry and I do. We put this program together and spend hours slaving over a hot stove every week to deliver this stuff to you that nobody else does. People have tried, Larry. People have tried. But here we are.
[53:26] Larry: Well, my theory is that when people try, they figure out it’s more work than they realized. Yeah,
[53:35] Andy: No doubt. It does take quite a bit of work. People think, oh my God, you just put this together and read it. Yeah, okay, give that a shot.
[53:53] Announcer: You’ve been listening to FYP.