R.I. Gen. Laws
Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37.1-18 (2026)

Continuation of prior duty to register

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who pursuant to the provisions of former § 11-37-16 had a duty to register under that section after having been convicted of any violation of the provisions of chapter 37 of this title, or for a conviction in another state of first degree sexual assault which if committed in this state would constitute a violation of chapter 37 of this title, shall have the duty to register in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any duty to register which exists or existed under the provisions of former § 11-37-16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2022 · leading case: State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Santos, 870 A.2d 1029 (R.I. 2005). · cites it 10× “That is because G.L.1956 § 11-37.1-18 of the subsequently enacted registration statute contains a savings clause stating that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any duty to register which exists or existed under the provisions of former § 11-37-16.”
State v. Frederick Gibson Frederick Gibson v. State of Rhode Island, 182 A.3d 540 (R.I. 2018). · cites it 14× “Rather, we hold that, in accordance with the language of §§ 11-37.1-18 and 11-37.1-4(a), Gibson's duty to register expires "ten (10) years from the expiration of sentence for the offense * * *.”
State v. Flores, 714 A.2d 581 (R.I. 1998). · cites it 4× “The hearing justice ruled from the bench that petitioner must register as a sex offender 3 pursuant to § 11-37.1-18, which reads: Continuation of prior duty to register.”
United States v. Stevens, 598 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D. Me. 2009). “(quoting R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-37.1-18 (1996)). The Flores Court concluded that the 1992 law still applied to Mr.”
Sebastian Wells Atryzek v. State of Rhode Island, 268 A.3d 37 (R.I. 2022). · cites it 4× “In Gibson, we held that, after § 11-37-16 was repealed, the newly enacted savings clause set forth in § 11-37.1-18 of the registration act preserved an offender’s duty to register but was silent as to the duration of the registration requirement.”
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.