February 2, 2012

United States Supreme Court decision - Reynolds v. United States - Sex Offender Registration

Reynolds v. United States            Federal Sex Offender Registration
Facts:            Mr. Reynolds served prison time for a sex offense in Missouri from 2001. After Missouri released him, he moved to Pennsylvania. The Government claimed he did not give notice to Missouri of his change in residence, a violation of federal statute. Subsequent to his conviction, Congress passed its latest version of the sex offender registration statute. Never one to miss a chance at being petty, the government indicted Mr. Reynolds for not telling Missouri where he moved.
Issue: Whether the latest version of the federal sex offender registration statute applied people convicted prior to the statute’s enactment?
Held: No.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Act does not apply to anyone convicted prior to its enactment until the Attorney General so specifies. At the time, the Attorney General had yet to specify the statute applied to folks like Mr. Reynolds. 
Link to Reynolds v. United States here


  1. I am a layman without any educational or legal background. However, I find it particularly interesting to see how our federal, state and local governments court system, legislators and law enforcement keeps everyone in a state of confusion regarding the Adam Walsh Act/SORNA etc.

    It seems to me that our Constitution ex post facto amendment is primarily against it's original intent.

    I am embarrassed and ashamed of our legal system from our Supreme Court justices down to county law enforcement.

    There has to be a more responsible, mature and intelligent way to create laws that not only serve the justice system but the accused as well.


Search the Sword