Sex offender registration--in Ohio
United States v. Tyler Miller, Army SPCM from 2009, does not appear on line.
Apparently he was convicted at a Special Court-Martial for wrongful sexual contact and "was reduced to an E-1, confined for 11 months and later discharged from the service with a ‘bad conduct’ discharge.”
CentralMaine.com reports that he has been arrested for failing to register as a sex offender in Ohio.
Amy Calder, US Marshal's arrest a Newport man who failed to register as a sex offender in Ohio. Morning Sentinel, April 2, 2022.
Here's a link to the Ohio Revised Code.
See here about the U.S. Marshal's Service and sex offenders.
Tawakkol v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety, Sex Offender Registration Bureau, et al., No. 1:19-CV-513-LY (W.D. Texas, March 29, 2022).
Plaintiff was a USAFA cadet convicted at court-martial. "All three charges stemmed from attempted or actual violations of UCMJ Art. 120c(a)(2), Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, or Broadcasting."
"He was also convicted of one count of Invasive Visual Recording on March 27, 2018, in a Texas state-court proceeding. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.15(b). Tawakkol's conviction under Section 21.15(b) is not included in the definition of a "reportable conviction or adjudication"
under Section 2 l. 15(b) for the purposes of the registration required by Texas law. Tex. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. § 62.001(5)."
Defendants argue that Tawakkol must register as a sex offender because he is an "extrajurisdictional registrant" under Texas law. An extrajurisdictional registrant is required to register as a sex offender in Texas. An extrajurisdictional registrant
The judge then reviewed SORNA and DoD Instruction No. 1325.07, Administration of Military Correctional Facilities and Clemency and Parole Authority, to determine if the classification of Tawakkol's convictions are properly listed or the classification is ultra vires and unenforceable.
In reviewing the validity of a military law or regulation, the court gives "great deference to professional judgment of military authorities." See Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507 (1986); Or/off v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953) ("Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters"). The Supreme Court has explained this deference: "the special relationships that define military life have 'supported the military establishment's power to deal with its own personnel' [because] 'courts are ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have." Chappell v. Wallace, 426 U.S. 296, 305 (1983) (quoting Earl Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 181, 188 (1962)).
After discussing UCMJ art. 120c(a)(2), the judge concludes that,
Article 1 20c(a)(2) cannot be considered an offense requiring sex offender-registration, at
Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
-Current Term Opinions
Joint R. App. Pro.
Army Crim. L. Deskbook