Every state, including Maryland, requires certain sex offenders to comply with registration requirements. Whether or not one must register and under what conditions depends on the sex crime that the individual was convicted of.

Failure to register usually results in severe penalties. However, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a specific class of sex offenders may not be held accountable for failure to register.

In 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act became federal law. Seven months after becoming law, the attorney general asserted that its provisions apply to "all sex offenders, including sex offenders convicted of the offense for which registration is required prior to the enactment" of the Act. Basically, the attorney general insisted that all offenders, even those who had been convicted before the Act became law, are required to register.

The Supreme Court has ruled that this mandate is not to be enforced in certain cases. Specifically, those who failed to register during the seven months between July 2006 and the release of the attorney general's statement, who had been convicted of their offenses prior to July 2006.

Essentially, the Court reasoned that prior to the attorney general's statement, those who had been convicted prior to the law's enactment were not specifically required to register, according to the language of the Act. Therefore, punishing them for failure to register simply because the attorney general asserted that they should be so would be unjust.

There are nuances to the Supreme Court's ruling which are too complex to delve into in this forum. However, those with questions about registration can always contact legal counsel or state officials in charge of registration monitoring.

Source: Courthouse News Service, "Sex offender may have a case for not registering," Barbara Leonard, Jan. 23, 2012