The Legislature makes all of the following findings:
(1) Registration and notification laws are a vital concern as the number of sex offenders continues to rise. The increasing numbers coupled with the danger of recidivism place society at risk. Registration and notification laws strive to reduce these dangers by increasing public safety and mandating the release of certain information to the public. This release of information creates better awareness and informs the public of the presence of sex offenders in the community, thereby enabling the public to take action to protect themselves. Registration and notification laws aid in public awareness and not only protect the community but serve to deter sex offenders from future crimes through frequent in-person registration. Frequent in-person registration maintains constant contact between sex offenders and law enforcement, providing law enforcement with priceless tools to aid them in their investigations including obtaining information for identifying, monitoring, and tracking sex offenders.
(2) Juvenile sex offenders also pose a risk to the community. Due to juvenile sex offenders offending in their formative years, it is imperative that they receive sex offender treatment. At the completion of sex offender treatment, all juvenile sex offenders must undergo a risk assessment, and a hearing must be held by the court to determine their level of risk to the community and the level of notification that should be provided to best protect the public. Juvenile sex offenders adjudicated delinquent of the most serious offenses who pose a greater threat should be subject to more stringent requirements.
(3) Homeless sex offenders are a group of sex offenders who need to be monitored more frequently for the protection of the public. Homeless sex offenders present a growing concern for law enforcement due to their mobility. As the number of homeless sex offenders increases, locating, tracking, and monitoring these offenders becomes more difficult.
(4) Sexually violent offenders also cause increased concern for law enforcement. These predators are repeat sexual offenders who use physical violence, offend on multiple victims, and prey on children. Due to their likelihood to engage in future sexually violent behavior, they present an extreme threat to the public safety. The Legislature declares that its intent in imposing additional tracking and monitoring requirements on sexually violent predators is to assist law enforcement in carrying out their duties and, most importantly, to protect the public, especially children.
(5) Sex offenders, due to the nature of their offenses, have a reduced expectation of privacy. In balancing the sex offender’s rights, and the interest of public safety, the Legislature finds that releasing certain information to the public furthers the primary governmental interest of protecting vulnerable populations, particularly children. Employment and residence restrictions, together with monitoring and tracking, also further that interest. The Legislature declares that its intent in imposing certain registration, notification, monitoring, and tracking requirements on sex offenders is not to punish sex offenders but to protect the public and, most importantly, promote child safety.
(Act 2011-640, p. 1569, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case:
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Ala. 2015).
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Ala. 2015).
· cites it 13× “# 167, at 42 (emphasis in original) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(1)).) Indeed, according to the State’s expert, “ ‘[e]ompared to the threat of long-term incarceration, it seems unlikely that the incremental pain threated by a [sex-offender registration and notification] law .”
Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019).
“§ 15-20A-2(5). The phrase "reduced expectation of privacy" does not invite law enforcement to violate constitutional rights; it is a justification for publishing an offender's personal information online.”
Jim Windwalker v. Governor of Alabama, 579 F. App'x 769 (11th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “The act has three main parts: (1) quarterly in-person registration with law enforcement to provide personal information, and, in case of travel for more than three days, information for a travel permit; (2) community notification about sex offenders’ identity and location, and a…”
Burt v. State, 149 So. 3d 1110 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” § 15-20A-2(1), Ala.Code 1975. Moreover, the legislature demonstrated its intent not to pardon a failure to register when it stated in § 15-20A-2(a) that “[t]his chapter is applicable to every adult sex offender convicted of a sex offense as defined in Section 15-20A-5, without…”
Windwalker v. Bentley, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(5); see id. (“The Legislature declares that its intent in imposing certain registration, notification, monitoring, and tracking requirements on sex offenders is not to punish sex offenders but to protect the public and, most importantly, promote child…”
State v. Biddle, 187 So. 3d 1122 (Ala. 2015).
“Registration and notification laws strive to reduce these dangers by increasing public safety and mandating the release of certain information to the public.”
Vann v. State, 143 So. 3d 850 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
“Section 15-20A-2, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part: "The Legislature makes all of the following findings: “(1) Registration and notification laws are a vital concern as the number of sex offenders continues to rise.”
E.L.C. v. N.J.C. (Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court: DR-19-901277). (Ala. Civ. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “The legislative purpose of the Act is now codified at § 15-20A-2, Ala. Code 1975, and similarly provides that the Act's residency requirements are for the purpose of "protect[ing] the public and, most importantly, promot[ing] child safety.”
Henry v. Abernathy (M.D. Ala. 2022).
“§ 15-20A-2(5). B. Factual Background In 2013, Henry was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.”
Henry v. Abernathy (M.D. Ala. 2022).
“§ 15-20A-2(5). B. Factual Background Henry currently resides in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama.”
Henry v. Abernathy (M.D. Ala. 2024).
“§ 15-20A-2(5), the statute allows every qualifying adult sex offender daily unsupervised access to minors for four hours at a time in any one place on two consecutive days and nine aggregate days per month, as long as such access occurs between the hours of 6:00 a.”
— Ala. Code § 15-20A-2(1) — 2 cases
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Ala. 2015).
“# 167, at 42 (emphasis in original) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(1)).) Indeed, according to the State’s expert, “ ‘[e]ompared to the threat of long-term incarceration, it seems unlikely that the incremental pain threated by a [sex-offender registration and notification] law .”
Burt v. State, 149 So. 3d 1110 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
“” § 15-20A-2(1), Ala.Code 1975. Moreover, the legislature demonstrated its intent not to pardon a failure to register when it stated in § 15-20A-2(a) that “[t]his chapter is applicable to every adult sex offender convicted of a sex offense as defined in Section 15-20A-5, without…”
— Ala. Code § 15-20A-2(3) — 1 case
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Ala. 2015).
“# 167, at 42 (emphasis in original) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(1)).) Indeed, according to the State’s expert, “ ‘[e]ompared to the threat of long-term incarceration, it seems unlikely that the incremental pain threated by a [sex-offender registration and notification] law .”
— Ala. Code § 15-20A-2(5) — 8 cases
McGuire v. Strange, 83 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (M.D. Ala. 2015).
“# 167, at 42 (emphasis in original) (quoting Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(1)).) Indeed, according to the State’s expert, “ ‘[e]ompared to the threat of long-term incarceration, it seems unlikely that the incremental pain threated by a [sex-offender registration and notification] law .”
Doe v. Marshall, 367 F. Supp. 3d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2019).
“§ 15-20A-2(5). The phrase "reduced expectation of privacy" does not invite law enforcement to violate constitutional rights; it is a justification for publishing an offender's personal information online.”
Jim Windwalker v. Governor of Alabama, 579 F. App'x 769 (11th Cir. 2014).
“The act has three main parts: (1) quarterly in-person registration with law enforcement to provide personal information, and, in case of travel for more than three days, information for a travel permit; (2) community notification about sex offenders’ identity and location, and a…”
Windwalker v. Bentley, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
“” Ala.Code § 15-20A-2(5); see id. (“The Legislature declares that its intent in imposing certain registration, notification, monitoring, and tracking requirements on sex offenders is not to punish sex offenders but to protect the public and, most importantly, promote child…”
— Ala. Code § 15-20A-2(a) — 1 case
Burt v. State, 149 So. 3d 1110 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
“” § 15-20A-2(1), Ala.Code 1975. Moreover, the legislature demonstrated its intent not to pardon a failure to register when it stated in § 15-20A-2(a) that “[t]his chapter is applicable to every adult sex offender convicted of a sex offense as defined in Section 15-20A-5, without…”
— Ala. Code § 15-20A-2(l) — 1 case
Jim Windwalker v. Governor of Alabama, 579 F. App'x 769 (11th Cir. 2014).
“The act has three main parts: (1) quarterly in-person registration with law enforcement to provide personal information, and, in case of travel for more than three days, information for a travel permit; (2) community notification about sex offenders’ identity and location, and a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.