Sex offender registry; electronic identification information, registration requirements. (SB243)
Introduced By
Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Sex offender registry; electronic identification information; registration requirements. Under current law a registered sex offender must reregister within 30 minutes following a change of the offender's electronic mail address information, any instant message, chat, or other Internet communication name or identity information that the person uses or intends to use, whether within or without the Commonwealth. This bill extends the time frame to the next business day after the person learns of the change. The bill also provides that consumer account information, such as usernames and passwords, do not have to be submitted to the Registry. Read the Bill »
Outcome
Bill Has Failed
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 01/06/2016 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16102899D |
| 01/06/2016 | Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice |
| 01/18/2016 | Failed to report (defeated) in Courts of Justice (6-Y 9-N) (see vote tally) |
| 01/18/2016 | Impact statement from DPB (SB243) |
Comments
I strongly support this bill. As a registered sex offender, it is terribly inconvenient and unreasonable to have to get to a state barracks within 30 minutes to report a new name and password. I have no problem with providing this information but what is the problem with making this something that is doable rather than something that is nearly impossible. I can get to a barracks within 30 minutes (just barely, assuming good weather and no accidents or road repairs along the way) but for many others on the registry it is impossible or interferes with work, child rearing, schooling, etc.
I have been told by VSP that they have no mechanism in place to support the law as written. However, they have also stated that they WILL prosecute if the offender is in violation. Huh? So yes, this is a good bill but could go further. Required registry updates should all have the same time frame to prevent confusion and inadvertent violations.