New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7
In People v. Allen, the defendant challenged the constitutionality of requiring sex offenders to report changes of address has come under scrutiny. The case in question revolves around Correction Law § 168–f(3), a provision of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) in New York. At the heart of the matter is whether this law, which mandates that level three sex offenders verify their address with authorities every 90 days, violates the due process rights of certain offenders. Specifically, the case challenges the law’s application to homeless sex offenders who lack a fixed address. In this blog post, we will delve into the details of this case, analyze the constitutional implications, and arrive at a reasoned conclusion.
Background
Sex offender registration laws, such as New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), were initially enacted with the intent of enhancing public safety by providing law enforcement and communities with information about the whereabouts of individuals convicted of sex offenses. These laws require convicted sex offenders to periodically update their personal information, including their current address, to ensure that authorities can monitor their whereabouts.
In Allen, the defendant had been classified as a risk level three sex offender having been convicted of first-degree sexual abuse involving a minor under the age of 11. Based on that conviction he had been determined to be a risk level three sex offender. In the present case he faced a single count of failure to verify his address information every 90 days, as required by Correction Law § 168–t. This charge was based on the defendant’s alleged failure to personally verify his address on or about January 21, 2016, as mandated by Correction Law § 168–f(3).
Decision
The court found that Correction Law § 168–f(3) is void for vagueness when applied to homeless sex offenders who lack a fixed address. This, the court argued, deprived the defendant of due process rights protected by both the New York State and United States Constitutions.
Discussion
The case centered around a defendant charged with failing to verify his address information every 90 days as required by Correction Law § 168–f(3). The defendant, a level three sex offender, claimed that he was homeless and therefore unable to provide a fixed address for registration. Despite his efforts to comply with reporting requirements by visiting a designated location, the defendant was unable to fulfill the requirement of providing an address, which led to his arrest and subsequent legal proceedings.
The heart of the matter was whether the law was unconstitutionally vague when applied to homeless sex offenders. The court pointed out that due process requires laws to be sufficiently clear to give individuals notice of what is prohibited and provide clear standards for enforcement. In this case, Correction Law § 168–f(3) mandated that offenders register a change of residence by providing an “address,” but it failed to provide any guidance or standards for homeless sex offenders without a fixed address.
The court emphasized that homelessness presents unique challenges, especially in metropolitan areas like New York City. Homeless individuals may occupy multiple locations during the day and night, making it unclear which address they should provide. Moreover, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) did not consider homelessness as an acceptable explanation for not providing an address, further adding to the confusion.
The court distinguished this case from previous rulings that found the law constitutional in different circumstances, emphasizing that they were not binding and that the unique challenges posed by homelessness required a different interpretation. The court’s ruling was narrow and specific: Correction Law § 168–f(3) cannot be constitutionally applied to homeless sex offenders who cannot provide an address.
Conclusion
The court deemed Correction Law § 168–f(3) unconstitutional as applied to homeless sex offenders without a fixed address. This case highlights the importance of clarity and specificity in laws, especially when dealing with vulnerable populations like the homeless. It’s a reminder that constitutional rights must be upheld, even in the context of sex offender registration laws, and that legal challenges can lead to important clarifications and revisions in the law. If you are facing a sex crime charge, contact an experienced New York sex crime lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates.