When a Sex Offender Comes to Visit: A National Assessment of Travel Restrictions
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0887403417742948 |
| Author | Shawn M. Rolfe |
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Criminal Justice Policy Review
2019, Vol. 30(6) 885 –905
When a Sex Offender
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Comes to Visit: A National
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417742948
DOI: 10.1177/0887403417742948
journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp
Assessment of Travel
Restrictions
Shawn M. Rolfe1
Abstract
The present study examines the registration requirements for registered sex
offenders traveling from their resident state to another state for business or
pleasure. The author contacted each state’s primary Sex Offender Registration and
Notification (SORN) office to obtain the required registration requirements for
nonresident sex offenders, as well as where and how nonresident sex offenders
can obtain this information prior to visiting that state. The findings indicate that
registration requirements and residence restrictions vary significantly by state for
nonresident registrants. While not surprising given that numerous studies have
highlighted that sex offender policies produce unique and severe challenges for all
sex offenders in the United States. This study, however, suggests that nonresident
sex offender policies are potentially another collateral consequences for registrants.
Most notably, there is significant variation in the number of days a registered
sex offender has to register in any given state when they come to visit for any
occasion. Depending on the state or jurisdiction that the registrant is visiting,
residence restrictions may also be applicable. As a result of these laws, registrants
may feel stymied from visiting another state, which may further delineate prosocial
opportunities, including gatherings with family and friends or fulfilling employment
obligations. Additionally, states may experience an increased financial burden due
to the manpower needed to enforce their state’s nonresident sex offender laws,
especially in areas that are known tourist destinations. Future research and policy
implications are further discussed.
1University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Shawn M. Rolfe, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Louisville, 2301 S 3rd St, Louisville, KY
40292, USA.
Email: srolfe9@gmail.com
886
Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(6)
Keywords
traveling sex offenders, collateral consequences, SORN and residence restriction
laws
Convicted sexual offenders are the most scrutinized, surveilled, and regulated criminal
class today. Over the past three decades, numerous policies, statutes, and practices
have been implemented to enhance the surveillance of sexual offenders. This is due, in
part, because of a few nationally high-profiled cases involving children who were
sexually assaulted and murdered by their assailant. Due to such incidents and others
similar to them, it has influenced the public and policymakers’ perception of sexual
offenders as being extremely dangerous and most likely to reoffend when compared to
non-sexual offenders (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Quinn, Forsyth, &
Mullen-Quinn, 2004; Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). Contrary to these beliefs about sex-
ual offenders and the laws that have been implemented to protect the public, research
has shown that such policies are ineffective. In fact, prior work has argued that sex
offender management schemes do more harm than good because these strategies cre-
ate a false sense of security for the public and produce negative consequences for sex
offenders, the criminal justice system, and society (Duwe, Donnay, & Tewksbury,
2008; Jennings, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2012; Ragusa-Salerno & Zgoba, 2012; Socia,
2014).
While there are variations in how states regulate the whereabouts and activities of
registrants, most states rely on two specific types of laws to accomplish this goal: Sex
Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) and residence restrictions (i.e., buffer
zone between sex offenders’ residence and where children are most likely to congre-
gate). Overall, SORN is the most universally used mechanism to regulate sex offenders
because it provides the public with access to the whereabouts of these types of individu-
als. It should be noted that not all states are equal in what they provide on their SORN
websites, but every state typically includes a photo of the registrant and their current
residential address. Some states also include other information such as where the regis-
trant is employed, whether or not they attend an institution of higher education, or areas
in which they engage in volunteerism. There is an array of other information (i.e., vehi-
cle information, email addresses, etc.) collected from the registrant by law enforcement
agencies; however, such information is not usually made available to the public.
To further protect children from registrants, some states or municipalities have
relied on residence restriction ordinances to create a buffer zone between where sex
offenders reside and where children are most likely to congregate. For example, regis-
trants are not permitted to live within a certain number of feet from schools, day care
centers, parks, and playgrounds. On the surface, these initiatives appear to be a com-
mon-sense approach to safeguarding the public, especially children, from those who
have been convicted of committing a sexual offense. As it will be further highlighted
later, research has demonstrated the flaws in SORN and residence restrictions, espe-
cially in the impediments to successful reentry efforts of those required to register as a
sex offender (Levenson, 2008; Tewksbury, 2005, 2012)
Rolfe
887
Overall, sex offender laws in the United States have had a deleterious effect on
those who have been convicted of a sex crime. While some registrants struggle more
than others throughout their reintegration efforts, research has shown that all regis-
tered sex offenders are not impervious to problems with securing and maintain hous-
ing and employment. This constant struggle has relegated many registrants to socially
disorganized neighborhoods, homelessness, and has blocked opportunities for sex
offenders to learn new skills to improve employment opportunities. These laws also
preclude registrants from receiving other vital resources, such as treatment programs,
homeless shelters, various government programs (i.e., section-8 housing, food assis-
tance, etc.), and prosocial support systems (Levenson & Cotter, 2005a, 2005b;
Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2011; Rolfe, Tewksbury, & Lahm, in press; Rolfe, Tewksbury,
& Schroeder, 2016; Socia, Levenson, Ackerman, & Harris, 2015; Tewksbury & Lees,
2006; Tewksbury & Levenson, 2009).
The collateral consequences of sex offender laws have been researched extensively
for more than a decade. Research, however, has not yet examined (a) the nonresident
policies for registrants who travel from their resident state to another state, and (b) to
what degree, if any, nonresident sex offender policies create additional collateral con-
sequences for registered sex offenders, their family members or friends, or the state.
The goal of the current exploratory study is to examine each state’s nonresident sex
offender registration policies and procedures.
Literature Review
SORN Laws
Since 1994, three federal SORN laws have been passed and implemented. The first
law was the Jacob Wetterling Act (1994), which instituted the registration require-
ments for those convicted of a sexual offense and provided guidelines for verifying
the residential address of registrants by law enforcement agencies. Shortly thereafter,
Megan’s Law (1996) was passed, which required that sex offender registration infor-
mation be available to the public. Most notably, Megan’s Law created online sex
offender registries that could be retrieved by anyone with Internet access, but the law
also allowed for the dissemination of sex offender registry information through mail-
ers, fliers posted around the community, and other media outlets. States were also
permitted to devise their own sex offender classification system under Megan’s Law
(i.e., tier levels). The use of tier levels provides the public and law enforcement agen-
cies a sense of how dangerous a registrant might be, including how likely a registrant
is to sexually reoffend. Typically, the lower the tier level that a registrant has been
designated, the less likely it is believed that they will recidivate. The downside to
permitting states to devise their own sex offender registries has led to a convoluted
system in which the classification, monitoring, and reporting of registrants varies
substantially by state.
To overcome the problem of sex offender laws and classification schemes varying
by state, the federal government passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
888
Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(6)
Act (AWA) in 2006. One of the main arguments for the AWA was that registrants were
moving to states where the registration requirements were less severe than the state in
which they were convicted. To alleviate this issue, AWA instituted a universal three-
tiered classification system for registered sex offenders, thereby requiring sex offenders
to register at the same tier level when moving from one state to another (Office of Sex
Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, 2017).
One of the major difference of AWA compared with...
To continue reading
Request your trial