NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
Foley |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
449 |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Sex Offender Registration Requirements |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Gilbert |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
$0.1
See Narrative |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
LFC Files
Responses
Received From
Department
of Corrections (DOC)
Attorney
General’s Office (AGO)
Department
of Public Safety (SPS)
Public
Defender Department (PDD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis
of Bill
House Bill 449 amends the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act.
Changes include modifying the time limits for registration from annually
to every 90 days, the definition of a sex offender includes all persons
(irrespective of age), and the length of registration requirements depends on
the particular sex offense conviction.
Significant
Issues
This bill adds juveniles and misdemeanor
offenders to the category of sex offenders who must register with the county
sheriff. It also requires that
additional information be provided; it lengthens the registration period from
20 years to natural life for certain offenders, and requires this information
to be included in the motor vehicle registry.
One purpose of this bill is to bring the state
into compliance with the Federal Jacob Wetterling Act
which requires that sexually violent predators, aggravated offenders, and
recidivists be subject to lifetime registration, without possibility of removal
from the system. It also requires quarterly
address verification. Most of the
changes in this bill relate to maintaining federal compliance.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
Failure to comply with the requirements of the
Jacob Wetterling Act will cost the state ten percent
of all Edward Byrne Formula Grants.
Since these grants total approximately $4.0 million, the state would
lose approximately $400.0.
The proposed amendments to the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act in HB 449 may increase Department of
Corrections (DOC) costs because of the lengthier and more
stringent registration requirements. Sex offenders’ failure
to comply with the provisions of this bill will likely result in an increase in
prosecutions for failure to comply and in probation violations for failure to
comply. It is anticipated that
probation violations will result in more sex offenders being returned to
prison. The proposed amendments would
result in a small increase in the administrative burden on DOC records managers
and probation and parole officers.
The proposed legislation may conflict with the
New Mexico Children’s Code where “convictions” do not result and requires the
court to seal records of juvenile offenders.
Five states currently specifically exclude juveniles from registration
requirements. Sixteen states subject juveniles
to provisions of registration laws.
According to the Attorney General’s Office
(AGO), there are several constitutional challenges pending in the New Mexico
Supreme Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals concerning the interpretation
and enforcement of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
The pending cases are:
State v. Brothers,
State v.
State v.
Also, two cases are currently pending in the
United States Supreme Court. The cases
are: Doe v. Department of Public Safety,
271 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2001)(due process challenge to
CONFLICT
A conflict exists between the current New Mexico Children’s Code pertaining to the definition of a “sex offender” and whether a juvenile sex offender would be required to register because a juvenile is found “delinquent” (instead of “guilty”).
According to the DOC, at page 3, line 21,
it is unclear whether the phrase “offenses set forth in Paragraphs (1) through
(8)” is intended to read “Paragraphs (1) through (9)” in order to include the
crime of enticement of a child into the category of attempt to commit
enumerated sex offenses, a conviction of which would trigger sex offender
registration requirements.
LG/ls