Sessions and Blumenthal Introduce Finding Fugitive Sex Offender Act of 2011

Lawmakers do it AGAIN! This has been tried in previous sessions of Congress and each time it has died in committee. Today, 2011, lawmakers are losing their audience so they AGAIN RAISE the MISSING SEX OFFENDER issue to garner public support. The details of the bill are not yet published, but this has been tried before! When details are published I will review it in my blog "Bills in Congress."

3-31-2011 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced a bipartisan bill yesterday that would create subpoena authority by which the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service could authorize administrative subpoenas specifically for the investigation of sex offenders who have failed to register as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

Note: Attempts to get administrative subpoenas authority has been tried in various contexts, missing sex offenders and even terrorism cases, and also tucked into other sex offender bills (Ahhh, the infamous "And for other purposes"). Below are the most recent with respect to sex offenders, each has died in committee. There must be something inherently wrong with this power, maybe because it requires no notice to the person it is about. Don't know. But they are trying AGAIN!

EARLIER ATTEMPTS at ADMINSTRATIVE SUBPOENAS:

111th Congress: S-2972 "Arresting Child Predators Act of 2010"

111th Congress: S-2925 "Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010"

110th Congress: HR-3148 "Child Pornography Elimination Act of 2007"

109th Congress: HR-4170 "Fugitive Apprehension Assistance Act of 2005"

109th Congress: HR-3726 "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005"

Cosponsors of the bill include Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), Susan Collins (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Richard Burr (R-NC), and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

The administrative subpoena power granted by the Finding Fugitive Sex Offenders Act of 2011 would allow the Marshals Service the ability to track unregistered sex offenders in real time across jurisdictions. Sadly, sex offenders often fail to register precisely so they can evade detection and in many cases, find new victims.

“As offenders circumvent the law to hide their location, every second could mean the difference between life and death for a new set of victim,” Sessions said. “Marshals must have the ability to quickly obtain vital information in these fast-moving investigations of unregistered sex offenders, so they will be able to find missing predators more easily and greatly curb the threat of future offenses. When I served Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee in the 111th Congress, I worked closely with my Democrat and Republican colleagues to create language that would grant the Marshals Service the ability to quickly act to find sex offenders.”

“Granting the Marshals Service this authority to track down fugitive sex offenders will help keep our children and our communities safe,” Blumenthal said. “I’m proud to work with my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure law enforcement has the tools and resources they need to pursue and prosecute these dangerous convicted criminals.”

"Missing sex offenders" and they are "Dangerous." Folks notice they should no proof or authority that either is true. For years we have heard the cry "Missing = recidivism = Dangerousness" used to support getting more funding, for more federal jobs and similar jobs at state levels through grants. First see the TRUTH about "Missing Sex Offender claim." Also, Dr Jill Levenson recently reported "Results fail to support the supposition that sexual offenders who fail to register are more sexually dangerous than those who comply with registration requirements." in her 2009 study on the topic: Failure to Register as a Sex Offender: Is it Associated with Recidivism? Lawmakers are losing the public support and AGAIN are grasping at straws to get it back, no matter whose rights are taken away.

The Adam Walsh Act of 2006 was passed to create a more uniform and enforceable sex offender registry system. A key component of the Act gave the U.S. Marshals Service primary enforcement authority to locate and arrest unregistered sex offenders who had moved in interstate commerce or had earlier been convicted under federal law. This provision will help the Marshals Service perform this vital task.

S.671, the Finding Fugitive Sex Offender Act of 2011, was introduced to the Senate March 29, 2011. ..Source.. by Sen. Blumenthal Press Release

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

UPDATE: Whats Happening in Washington: Ahhh, the old "and for other purposes" strikes again..

A reader commented on this post: "In Washington DC, how do they determine the constitutionality of something added under "and for other purposes" This is an excellent point! Also, there are times when someone is an "unregistered sex offender" and the law permits that, so are they too targeted by the U.S. Marshals?

9-30-2010 National:

I have no better way to explain the title of this post, but this week when I was doing my weekly searching of "Bills in Congress" for anything related to sex offenders, something popped up which is worthy of mention. Senate bill S 2925 "Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009," introduced 12-2009 and contained nothing about sex offenders and was languishing in Senate Judiciary Committee until 9-22-2010.

With my nose twitching I investigated how, on 9-22-2010, the bill was changed to mention sex offenders. Here is what I found: The original bill was GUTTED (XXX'ed out [see for yourself]) and NEW wording inserted, the bill still addressed "Trafficking Victims Grants" but the bill purpose now says "To establish a grant program to benefit victims of sex trafficking, and for other purposes. "

Ahhh, the infamous "and for other purposes." A political tool, to do something and without telling folks up front, then, once in law, it smacks someone in the face. Two new sections added, which have ZERO to do with "Trafficking Victim Grants" are:

Section 7 is about the U.S. Marshals and "Administrative Subpoenas," this would be added to the law: "(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with section 3486 of title 18, solely for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders."

Section 11 also about the U.S. Marshals and "Administrative Subpoenas," and this was added there: "(B) by striking `children,' and inserting the following: `children; or (III) and only for the purpose of investigations by the U.S. Marshals Service of an unregistered sex offender'" and this "(ii) the term `sex offender' means an individual required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.)..

Why is this subpoena power being tucked into a bill that has no relationship to the power? Come to think of it, aren't the U.S. Marshals already out there investigating and arresting unregistered sex offenders? I've read article after article about how many of the 100,000 they are allegedly finding.

Currently the U.S. Marshal's Powers and Duties 28 USC 566(e) say:

(e)

(1) The United States Marshals Service is authorized to—

(A) provide for the personal protection of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of justice where criminal intimidation impedes on the functioning of the judicial process or any other official proceeding; and

(B) investigate such fugitive matters, both within and outside the United States, as directed by the Attorney General.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1)(B) shall be construed to interfere with or supersede the authority of other Federal agencies or bureaus.

After the change it would say:

(e)

(1) The United States Marshals Service is authorized to—

(A) provide for the personal protection of Federal jurists, court officers, witnesses, and other threatened persons in the interests of justice where criminal intimidation impedes on the functioning of the judicial process or any other official proceeding; and

(B) investigate such fugitive matters, both within and outside the United States, as directed by the Attorney General; and

(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with section 3486 of title 18, solely for the purpose of investigating unregistered sex offenders.

(2) Nothing in paragraph (1)(B) shall be construed to interfere with or supersede the authority of other Federal agencies or bureaus.

The changes made to 18 USC 3486 are very tricky to show as I just did above for 28 USC 566, so in summary they are doing this; Adding Title 18 Sec 2250 [remember that is the jurisdictional hook which was added by the Adam Walsh Act, which criminalizes crossing state lines and failing to register] as one of the federal offenses where a administrative subpoena can be used, but only to investigate a "unregistered sex offender."

18 USC 3486(2) tells us more about an administrative subpoena:

(2) A subpoena under this subsection shall describe the objects required to be produced and prescribe a return date within a reasonable period of time within which the objects can be assembled and made available.

OK, so now we know what they want to do, and why they want to do it, but we don't know why they are -so to speak- sneaking it into a bill which bears no relationship to the subpoena. Could they be covering up something?

Here is what we do know, tons of money has been appropriated and granted to the U.S. Marshals to go find unregistered sex offenders, John Walsh and NCMEC has been touting this for some time. There have been reports of U.S. Marshals finding and arresting unregistered sex offenders, albeit with the help of local police agencies.

What we don't know about the unregistered sex offenders arrested, is, have the investigations been done legally? Or, do they need these changes to federal law to legalize what they have already done, and will do in the future?

I'll leave that question for everyone.

Have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

PS: Personally, I view this as one more -behind closed doors thing- being done in Washington, with respect to sex offenders. Remember, you do not need a subpoena to give a trafficking victim a grant to help them. More on administrative subpeonas as used under other laws: ONE and TWO.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...