Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:7-14 – Responsibilities of Attorney General.

New Jersey Section 2C:7-14 – Responsibilities of Attorney General

The New Jersey Section 2C:7-14 outlines the responsibilities of the Attorney General when it comes to the state’s sex offender registration laws. This section was enacted to provide guidance and procedures for the Attorney General to follow in carrying out the registration and notification requirements for sex offenders living in New Jersey.

Some of the key responsibilities of the Attorney General under this section include:

• Maintaining a central registry of all sex offenders required to register in the state
• Providing law enforcement agencies with notification of registrants and information as needed
• Developing guidelines and procedures for notification of communities regarding registered sex offenders
• Requiring registered offenders to periodically confirm their address and notify of any changes
• Verifying offender addresses through home visits by parole officers
• Obtaining fingerprints, DNA samples, and photographs of registrants
• Entering registrant information into the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) database
• Notifying out-of-state agencies when a registrant moves or attends school in their jurisdiction
• Providing online registry information to the public through the state’s sex offender internet registry

The Attorney General is granted a significant amount of authority and discretion when it comes to implementing the state’s registration and notification laws. They have the ability to determine the level of notification that should be provided to a community based on their assessment of the risk a particular registrant poses. This can range from just notifying local law enforcement, to broader community notifications if the offender is determined to be high risk.

Some key factors the Attorney General considers in determining an offender’s risk level include the seriousness of the offense, relationship between offender and victim, number of offenses and victims, age of victim, offender’s response to treatment, and community support available to the offender. Based on these factors, offenders are classified into one of three tiers that determine the scope of community notification.

The Attorney General also has the authority to adopt guidelines and procedures for how county prosecutors should carry out notifications. They provide direction on who should be notified, what information can be disclosed, and the methods of dissemination that can be used. This aims to provide consistency across the state in how notifications are conducted.

In addition, the Attorney General is tasked with maintaining the online sex offender registry that provides information and photographs of registered offenders to the public. They determine what information is made available and how it is presented on the website. This online registry is an important tool for increasing public awareness and helping communities protect themselves.

Implementation Issues

However, there have been some issues that have arisen regarding the implementation of these responsibilities by the Attorney General’s office. Some argue the guidelines and procedures for community notification are too vague, leading to inconsistent application across different counties. The level of discretion given to law enforcement in determining who should be notified has also raised concerns about potential misuse or overreach.

There have also been legal challenges to the online registry, arguing it violates offenders’ rights and in some cases has led to harassment or vigilantism. Defense attorneys have asserted the tier classification process is unfairly weighted against offenders without providing due process protections. Additionally, critics claim the registry provides a false sense of security since it is dependent on offenders keeping their information updated.

The notification and registration laws also come with a substantial cost to the state in terms of the personnel and systems required to maintain compliance. At a time when budgets are tight, some have questioned whether the benefits justify the costs. There are also concerns the stigma of being publicly listed on the online registry could increase recidivism by making it harder for past offenders to reintegrate into society.

While the intent behind community notification is public safety, it needs to be balanced against the potential for violating offenders’ rights. The Attorney General has a difficult task of weighing these considerations when adopting implementation guidelines and procedures. There is room for improvement in making the process more transparent, consistent, and incorporating more due process protections for offenders.

Case Law Challenges

There have been several legal challenges made against the sex offender registration and notification laws on constitutional grounds, leading to some case law that has impacted how the Attorney General carries out these duties. Some notable cases include:

• Doe v. Poritz – This 1995 New Jersey Supreme Court case upheld the constitutionality of Megan’s Law and the state’s community notification procedures. However, it required the Attorney General to provide an opportunity for offenders to challenge their tier classification and scope of notification.
• E.B. v. Verniero – A federal appeals court ruled in 1997 that the online sex offender registry violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws by retroactively increasing punishment for past crimes. This led to the registry only applying to crimes committed after the law’s enactment.
• A.A. ex rel. M.M. v. New Jersey – In 2007, an appeals court struck down restrictions that banned all registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of any school, reasoning it was too broad and restrictive on housing availability.
• J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board – The state Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that the state must evaluate the risk posed by an offender individually rather than assuming high risk based solely on the conviction offense when determining notification requirements.

While the courts have generally upheld the overall constitutionality of the registration and notification schemes, these cases have led to refinements in how the laws are applied. The Attorney General has had to amend guidelines and procedures to address the due process and reasonableness concerns raised through litigation.

Defense Strategies

For individuals facing charges that will lead to sex offender registration, it is important for their defense attorney to understand the potential consequences and develop strategies to avoid or mitigate these outcomes. Some options counsel may pursue include:

• Plea negotiations – The defense may attempt to plea bargain the charges down to an offense that does not trigger registration. However, prosecutors often push back given the public safety concerns.
• Diversion programs – For certain low-level offenses, arguing for pretrial diversion or intervention programs can potentially avoid a formal conviction requiring registration if completed successfully.
• Risk mitigation – Presenting evidence of low risk, such as no prior record, positive employment history, family support, mental health treatment, advanced age, or medical issues, may justify reduced restrictions.
• Constitutional challenges – Counsel can argue mandatory registration for the charged conduct violates constitutional rights, such as free speech for certain sexual material offenses.
• Procedural defects – Attorneys should scrutinize the State’s compliance with procedural requirements and look for any technical defects that could invalidate a registration outcome.
• Expungement – After completion of sentencing, attorneys may petition to have eligible convictions expunged which could lift registration requirements.

While defense strategies are limited given the mandatory nature of registration for many offenses, counsel should advocate creatively on a client’s behalf to minimize the burden as much as possible. Procedural flaws, factual distinctions, and constitutional arguments may open pathways to avoiding or reducing registration obligations in certain cases.

The sex offender registration duties assigned to the Attorney General involve significant logistical, legal and policy challenges. While focused on public safety, concerns around rights violations, costs, and unintended consequences have spurred debate around the proper implementation of these laws. Ongoing refinement through legislation, regulations, and case law will likely continue as the state seeks to balance effective oversight of past offenders with the imperatives of justice and rehabilitation.

References

Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995).

E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997).

A.A. ex rel. M.M. v. New Jersey, 341 F.3d 206 (3d Cir. 2003).

J.B. v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 229 N.J. 21, 160 A.3d 729 (2017).