#SexOffenderRegistry

[wilderlawfirm]

Breaking Down the Texas Penal Code on Sexual Assault Charges

Facing sexual assault charges in Texas can be one of the most overwhelming and emotionally taxing experiences of a person's life. If you are currently dealing with such a case, it is natural to feel confused, anxious, and unsure about your future. The legal system is complex, and the consequences of a conviction can be severe. As a person facing these charges, you likely have many questions about the process, your rights, and what the best steps forward are.

At this point, it's important to know that you are not alone. Our firm is here to support you through every stage of your case. We understand the fear and worry that come with facing criminal charges, especially in a case as serious as sexual assault. It’s crucial to understand the Texas Penal Code surrounding these charges and what your defense options are. The goal of this discussion is to break down the charges, explain the law in simple terms, and offer guidance for what you can do next.

Understanding Sexual Assault in Texas

In Texas, sexual assault is defined under the Texas Penal Code, specifically Section 22.011. Sexual assault occurs when someone intentionally or knowingly engages in sexual contact with another person without their consent. It can involve a wide range of actions, including touching or penetrating another person’s body without their permission. Consent is a critical component of this crime, and a lack of consent is central to proving that an assault occurred.

The law in Texas is very clear about what constitutes sexual assault. However, it’s also important to note that consent can sometimes be complicated to prove. In many cases, the person accused of assault may claim that there was consent, while the alleged victim argues otherwise. This discrepancy is where many cases become complex, and why having a skilled attorney to help defend your case is so important.

The Penalties for Sexual Assault in Texas

If you are convicted of sexual assault in Texas, the consequences can be severe. Under the Texas Penal Code, sexual assault is classified as a second-degree felony. This means that a conviction could result in a prison sentence ranging from 2 to 20 years. Additionally, individuals convicted of sexual assault may also be required to register as sex offenders, which can have long-lasting effects on your personal and professional life.

The penalties for sexual assault are not only limited to imprisonment. Fines, probation, and other legal consequences may also be imposed depending on the circumstances of the case. It is important to note that any prior criminal history, the severity of the assault, and other factors may impact the final sentence in a sexual assault case.

Given the serious nature of these charges, it’s vital to understand that defending against them requires careful legal strategy. A criminal defense lawyer will evaluate the evidence in your case, determine the best course of action, and work to ensure that your rights are protected throughout the entire legal process.

Defenses Against Sexual Assault Charges

When facing sexual assault charges in Texas, there are several potential defenses that could help your case. One of the most common defenses is the argument of consent. If you can show that the alleged victim willingly participated in the sexual act, you may have a valid defense. However, as mentioned earlier, consent can be difficult to prove, and it’s crucial to gather any evidence that supports your version of events.

Another possible defense is mistaken identity. In some cases, people may be falsely accused of sexual assault due to mistaken identity or misunderstandings. It’s important to work with your attorney to gather any evidence or witnesses that can corroborate your version of the events and clear your name.

Additionally, there are other legal defenses that might apply depending on the circumstances of your case. These include challenges to the credibility of the accuser, issues with the way evidence was obtained, or the violation of your constitutional rights during the investigation or arrest process. Each case is unique, and a skilled lawyer can help determine which defenses may be the most appropriate for your situation.

The Importance of Legal Representation

Facing sexual assault charges is not something that should be handled without legal assistance. The complexity of the law, the severity of the potential penalties, and the emotional strain of being involved in such a case all highlight the importance of having an experienced lawyer on your side. An attorney will help you understand your rights, guide you through the legal process, and develop the best defense strategy to achieve a successful outcome in your case.

Having the right legal representation can make a significant difference in the outcome of your case. A defense attorney will evaluate all aspects of your situation, work with you to gather evidence, and ensure that your voice is heard in court. They will be able to navigate the legal complexities of sexual assault cases and challenge the prosecution’s case effectively.

If you are currently facing sexual assault charges in Texas, the road ahead may seem uncertain. However, it is crucial to remember that with the right legal support, you can take control of your situation and work toward the best possible outcome. Our firm is here to provide the guidance and legal representation you need during this challenging time.

We understand that being accused of sexual assault is a life-altering experience. We are empathetic to the emotional, mental, and financial toll it can take on you and your family. Our team is committed to providing you with personalized legal representation, ensuring that your rights are protected every step of the way.

At the end of the day, the goal is to help you achieve the most favorable result in your case, whether that means fighting the charges in court or negotiating a plea deal that minimizes the consequences. You do not have to navigate this difficult process alone.

If you or someone you know is facing sexual assault charges in Texas, it’s crucial to reach out for professional legal help. At Wilder Law Firm, we are ready to take your case seriously and fight for your rights. Let us help you move forward with confidence, knowing that your case is in capable hands.

[stormyfayethechristianrunaway]

If Only NORAD Storm Tracker

Was Used To Rescue Missing People

And Track Sexual Predators

Instead Of Mythical Characters

To Push Winter Buying Frenzy.

Why does Santa get press coverage but missing people and sexual assault advocates can't get a minute for a broadcast alert?

#ThinkingOutLoud

#TheStringerFiles2021

🙋🏾‍♀️👥 Stormy Faye The Christian Runaway

Subscribe to @stormyfaye and @stormy_faye or visit my bio link (https://linktr.ee/stormyfaye).

My tip donation is CashApp: $stormyfaye12.

#StormyFayeTheChristianRunaway

#FaithForTheJourney

#SantaClaus #Santa

#NORADTracksSanta #NORAD

#SexualPredators #SexOffenderRegistry

#MissingPersons #MissingPersonDatabase

[albionatheist]

Using #googlehome to call someone on the sex offender registry (Mike Murphy) #sexoffenderregistry #csc #albioncollege (at The Wakey Bakey Pastry Shoppe) https://www.instagram.com/p/CUXZYOFAkz6/?utm_medium=tumblr

[narsolstuff]

Black and Hispanic Americans receiving disproportionately harsher sentences

By Andrea Cipriano . . .  In a recent study published in the journal Sexual Abuse, the researchers explored what they said was a trend in more severe punishment over the past decade since Congress has enacted several pieces of legislation aimed at increasing the punishment in federal sex offender and child pornography cases. The researchers University of Texas at San Antonio criminology and criminal justice professors Richard Hartley and Alexander Testa, and alumnus Erika Martinez, noted that convictions in federal courts have increased over the last two decades. Most studies of federal sentencing have focused on “understanding what influences judicial decisions and whether racial/ethnic disparities in federal sentencing practices exist, regardless of the type of crime charged,” Hartley explained in an interview with the university journal, UTSA Today. “Little research, however, has examined the determinants of sentencing outcomes for those convicted of federal sex offenses.” The results of their research “generally demonstrates that male and minority defendants receive harsher punishments than their female and white counterparts convicted of similar offenses,” the report outlines. Recent USSC statistics cited by the authors show that just more than 70 percent of those serving time in federal prison are racial or ethnic minorities, so these findings align with known information. Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

NARSOL has it's own social media platform

NARSOL now has its own social media site at https://connections.narsol.org. Connections has the look and feel of Facebook and is intended to provide a way for people on the registry to socially interact. If you are craving social interaction with a group of people who understand what you have to deal with, this platform may be perfect for you! And feel free to invite sympathetic friends and family members. Connections is a place to share your day-to-day experiences, such as your favorite joke, your amazing accomplishments, recent events (happy or sad), or just your current philosophy of life. Like any social media site, you will find people you agree with and people you disagree with. You can choose to friend or unfriend people, or even block people. The administrators have set up basic rules of courtesy, and there is a strict age requirement (must be 18 or older). This is a site for sharing and socializing. For about one more week, you can join the site without an invitation. After that, the site will be locked and joining will require an invitation from someone already on the site. (This is to keep people out who only want to join in order to cause trouble!) To join, simply to go https://connections.narsol.org/ and sign up. It’s simple and it’s free. If you are able and you have the time to engage in a little virtual social interaction, you might want to give it a try. Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

The Sex Offense Registry - How did we get here?

A brief history of how the sex offense registry came into being. Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

New Jersey Supreme Court says no to removing names from registry

By Associated Press Two offenders identified only as H.D. and J.M. pleaded guilty to sexual offenses in the 1990s and guilty in 2001 to other offenses, one for computer-related theft and one for failure to register as a sex offender, and were sentenced to probation. State law imposes lifetime registration requirements on offenders but allows those on the registry to apply for removal if they haven't committed a crime within 15 years following "conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed" and are "not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others." H.D. and J.M. argued they are now eligible for removal since neither has had a conviction for more than 15 years, since 2001. The state disagreed, arguing that the law bars anyone on the registry from seeking removal if they commit any crime within the first 15 years following conviction for the underlying sex offense. But the appeals court wrote in 2018 that the relevant portion of the law is ambiguous, not regarding when the 15-year requirement starts, but “whether the clock may ever reset." In its 7-0 ruling posted Tuesday, the Supreme Court disagreed, writing that the statute's language “plainly refers to the conviction or release that triggers the registration requirement.” Read full article   Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

Unfavorable Decision in the Hearn Case

Hearn v. Castilleja (Filed by Attorney Richard Gladden) Today, May 27, 2020, I and my clients Jack, Donnie and Jimmy, received a final judgment and opinion from the U.S. District Court in Austin which ruled against us, and in favor of the State of Texas, in our civil rights case challenging the constitutionality of lifetime registration. The Court’s decision is posted along with this comment. As many of you are aware our constitutional claim rested on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Santobello v. New York. In Santobello the Supreme Court ruled a state violates substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it breaches a plea bargain agreement with a criminal defendant. In our case the State of Texas did just that: it changed state law to require Jack, Donnie and Jimmy to register for life, long after they accepted a plea bargain agreement in their criminal cases. The negotiated terms of their plea agreements, at the time of they were induced to waive their constitutional rights to a fair trial, either provided they would not be required to register at all, or that they would only be required to register until they completed their probation. Today the U.S. District Court in our case ruled against us on two, and only two, issues. First, the Court correctly ruled contract principles generally apply to our constitutional breach of plea claim. However, to our surprise, the Court further ruled that a valid breach of contract claim, as well as our constitutional claim based on Santobello, requires an aggrieved person to prove the consequences of the breach resulted in a criminal “punishment”  being imposed against him. Most of us are familiar that rule applies to Ex Post Facto claims. However, I am unaware of any case that recognizes such a principle in contract law, or any case that has interpreted Santobello in this way in the plea bargain context. Second, the Court ruled the applicable two-year statute of limitations barred our claims because more than two years elapsed between the point in time that Jack, Donnie and Jimmy “knew or should have known” their rights were violated (some 20 years ago), and the point in time that we filed our lawsuit (in 2018). Our position is, and has been throughout this case, that the “continuing violation doctrine” adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 overruled the “knew or should have known” doctrine for purposes of determining whether a claim is barred by a statute of limitations. Based on that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit likewise overruled the “knew or should have known” doctrine in 2017. Unfortunately, the District Court in our case, we believe, overlooked this fact. Instead, it based its statute of limitations ruling on an unpublished (and therefore non-precedential) case that was decided by the Fifth Circuit 1998, 19 years before that unpublished case was effectively overruled by the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent decision in 2017. While the District Court’s decision in our case today is disappointing, and unexpected  given Judge Yeakel’s long and well-deserved reputation for getting things right, we consider this merely a bump in the road, and far from the end of our case. I’ve been here before, and I’ve learned ultimate success, which is just around the corner, can be delayed in this way. Having discussed this matter with Jack, Donnie, and Jimmy, we intend to appeal from this decision. Although the appellate process may require another year or so to complete, we are confident we will prevail in the end. It is also our intention to keep all TVRJ members apprised of any significant developments in the case going forward. With Mary Sue’s assistance, we will do that by sharing those updates, if any, here. Thanks to all of you who have generously given us support in this fight so far, and to those who have patiently waited anxiously with us hoping for a better outcome. The fight goes on. Richard Gladden Click to read the following filings

Hearn-District-Court-Opinion-May-27-2020.pdf Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

Citizens Against Proactive Stings (CAPS)

Police run ILLEGAL proactive stings where they are supposed to be looking for pedophiles. Yet each prosecution nets the state a lot of money. So instead of following the rules in the contract signed by each police division of ICAC (Internet Crimes Against Children), they break the rules creating ‘criminals’ out of law abiding citizens. Video paid for by LadyJusticeMyth.Blog and CAPS Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

The Evidence-Based Case for Ending Sex Offender Registries

Sex offender registries promised to keep survivors and communities safe by limiting where people convicted of sex offenses can live, work, learn and volunteer. It requires them to publicly register where they reside and work. But studies show these laws fail to keep us safe, while they create an underclass of people who struggle to find a good job and safe place to live. Learn why registries have failed and the movement to end them. Moderator: Josh Hoe, Policy Analyst for Safe & Just Michigan Panelists: Miriam Aukerman, Senior Staff Attorney ACLU of Michigan Judith Levine, Journalist, Feminist & Co-Founder of the National Writers Union, Co-Author of “The Feminist and the Sex Offender: Confronting Sexual Harm, Ending State Violence Vincent Schiraldi, Senior Research Scientist Columbia University School of Social Work Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

Colorado Supreme Court allows man to stop registering

By Michael Karlik . . .  In a 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a criminal defendant was entitled to his request to de-register as a sex offender because he completed the terms of his probationary sentence and therefore no longer had a conviction under the law. A district court agreed with the prosecution, claiming that the “legislative intent” of the law was to bar even those with deferred sentences from de-registering in the state’s offender tracking system. The Colorado Court of Appeals also reached the same conclusion. Justice Justice Monica M. Márquez, writing for the Supreme Court’s majority, explained that cases of deferred judgment are treated as a “conviction” while the defendant completes his probation, even though the court has postponed officially recording it as such. However, once he completes the terms of his sentence, he is no longer "convicted." Márquez pointed out that Colorado’s SORA prohibits those who “received a deferred judgment and sentence” from de-registering. The missing piece, she wrote, was that the law “does not expressly address successfully completed deferred judgments and sentences.” Likewise, Márquez agreed that someone who "has" more than one conviction per the law is not identical to someone who "received" more than one conviction, regardless of what happened subsequent to that conviction. Under the prosecutors’ logic, she argued, anyone whose conviction was reversed on appeal might be precluded from de-registering because they technically received a conviction at some point. The case is Brian Keith McCulley v. The People of the State of Colorado. Read full article Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

N.H. court sides with sex offender who hired minor

A registered sex offender did not break the law by hiring a 16-year-old boy to work for his landscaping business, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled Friday. Edward Proctor was convicted in 2017 under a law prohibiting certain sex offenders from undertaking employment or volunteer services involving the care, instruction or guidance of children. According to court documents, he hired the teen in February 2016 for snow removal work and again in May 2016, driving him to job sites for weeding, mulching and other landscape work. He was arrested after the boy’s mother typed Proctor’s name into an online sex offender registry database. Proctor, who is serving a three- to six-year prison sentence, appealed his conviction, arguing that the law prohibits accepting certain types of employment, not providing employment. The high court did not weigh in on that argument but agreed with his second argument that the law, which specifically mentions jobs such as teacher, coach and camp counselor, only prohibits activity that inherently involves children. The court reversed Proctor’s conviction and sent the case back to the lower court Read full article Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

What keep us safe? It's sure not the sexual offense registry

Published 4/16 at Life on the List Guest post by Sandy Rozek Sex offenders have always been with us. Those who are convicted of committing rape and sexual assault and child molestation have always been punished and then released into the community. They were not registered. They did not have to “check in” with law enforcement once they were no longer on probation or parole. Their presence in the community as former sexual offenders was largely unknown. They lived and worked wherever they could with no restrictions on where; there were no imaginary lines drawn around parks or schools, no prohibition against trick-or treat or other Halloween activities, no requirement to notify law enforcement if their telephone number or place of employment changed. According to the wisdom of today, reoffense should have been rampant. As each year more individuals, virtually all “first-timers,” are released after serving a sentence for a sexual crime, the sheer mass of these felons unleashed on an unsuspecting public, with no one tracking or constantly monitoring them, must have resulted in ever-increasing numbers of victims. Stranger-rape victims must have been piling up in the streets. Those suffering from sexual assault must have overwhelmed the hospital system. Children must have been kidnapped from schools and parks in record numbers on a daily basis. But none of those things happened. Statistics are hard to come by. A study done in New York City (p.324), the Mayor’s Committee Report on Sex Offenses covering the years 1930 - 1939, reports, among others, these findings: There was no wave of sex crime in New York City during the 1930's. Although sex crimes receive more public attention than other types of crime, they represent only a small fraction of the sum total coming to the attention of the Police Department. Most sex crimes are by first offenders . . . Offenders charged with sex felonies are less inclined to have records than other types of felons. Sex crime is not habitual behavior for the great majority of convicted sex offenders. Police Department fingerprint records disclose that only 7%, 40 out of 555 offenders convicted of sex crimes in 1930, were again arrested on the same charge during the period from 1930 to 1941. A Bureau of Justice report published in 1997 gives this information for forcible rape: In 1976, 53 instances for each 100,000 female victims (Male victims were not counted until later.) In 1980, 65 per 100,000 In 1988, 66 per 100,000 In 1995, 66 per 100,000 This was all pre-Megan’s Law registries. Furthermore, children were not being assaulted or kidnapped from parks or schools. Schools had no security monitors, no screening devices; parents and other members of the public were, for the most part, free to come and go as they wished. Children played in parks, in the streets, in neighbors’ yards, unmonitored and unharmed. The rare, rare occasion of a child being taken by a stranger – e.g., – Jaycee Dugard; Elizabeth Smart -- was so remarkable that it dominated news cycles for months and even years. The only recorded instance, ever, of a child being abducted and harmed on Halloween is the tragic case of Lisa French in Fond du Luc, Wisconsin, in 1973. The man who molested and killed her while she was trick or treating had no record of a previous sexual crime. To this day, in the United States, there is no other reported instance of a stranger molestation of a child during Halloween activities, neither before the proliferation of sexual offense registries and Halloween restrictions nor after. Those convicted of sexual crimes did what those convicted of other crimes did: They served their sentences, struggled to gain employment on release, and assimilated into society as best they could. The only difference between former sexual offenders and those convicted of other offenses is that the reoffense rate for the former was and remains remarkably lower than for the later. So what happened? Jacob Wetterling happened (1987). Megan Kanka happened (1994). And years before them, although never proven to have been the result of a sexual crime, Adam Walsh had happened (1981). These three children were all tragically murdered. Jacob and Megan were victims of sexual offenders. Their cases were rare, horrific, and catalytic. In the years that followed, we saw the Jacob Wetterling Act (1994) that requires states to implement a sex offender and crimes against children registry, Megan’s Law (1996) requiring law enforcement authorities to make information available to the public regarding registered sex offenders, and the Adam Walsh Act (2006) outlining a plethora of requirements pertaining to those on a sexual offense registry. Individual states, not to be outdone by the federal government, rushed to implement further “protections.” Restrictions against where a registrant could live, work, or even be were proposed and eagerly passed by the voting public as they were presented as essential to “keep our children safe.” A wide variety of Halloween restrictions were implemented; an informal research project found that such restrictions were non-existent prior to 2003, when there were three articles announcing them. From there they climbed each year, and by 2014 numbered 177. At least one state makes it illegal for a person on the registry to give candy or a gift at Halloween, Christmas, Easter, or other holidays to any person 17 or younger; the statute makes no exception for one’s own children. And now, fueled by politicians who yearly propose new legislation further restricting the rights and movements of persons required to register and adding new offenses yearly, and by the media, who quickly discovered that “sex offender” in a header is automatic click-bait, the American public is convinced that the registry and all of the restrictions against and requirements of registered persons are the only things standing between them and wholesale rape and destruction of women and children. Fueled additionally by proliferation of the “frightening and high” recidivism myth and by a total disregard for studies that debunk essentially everything the public believes about those who commit sexual crime as well as for best practices for managing them, we find ourselves in the midst of a health crisis in which best practices and recommendations from health officials are either withheld from those on the registry or treated with dismay or hostility where they are extended. Virtually every announcement of releases from prisons, recommended by experts, makes it clear that “sex offenders” will not be included. Only four states to date have put state-wide holds on the required in-person visits to verify or change information by those on a registry, also highly recommended. When the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Dept. in Washington posted March 18 on their Facebook page that, in keeping with limiting face-to-face exposure as much as possible due to the Covid-19 crisis, “RSO services and check-ins will be delayed until April 6, 2020. Change of addresses can still be conducted by Certified Mail,” the comments included, “Who made the choice to close this? I am talking about the office where sex offenders check in? Was there absolutely no other step you could of taken? This makes me, a community member feel very concerned!” and “. . . sex offenders not having to check in until the office reopens. That in itself has caused me concern.” Those remarks, however, showed remarkable restraint in light of those posted in response to New York releasing prisoners, including some with sexual offenses. “Wouldn't a better approach be to use them as human test subjects? We could test all kinds of things on them and then expose them to COVID-19 and see what substances work. We could try cyanide, strychnine...” and “Did they castrate them first at least?” are representative of these. National crises are wont to bring out both the best and the worst in humanity. This one will be no exception. It is impossible at this point to know what changes in our society and our relationships with one another will occur as a result of our confrontation with the Coronavirus. One excellent thing that could come is a broader understanding of the actual and multi-faceted nature of sexual crime and those who commit it and a realization that the myriad of restraints placed on those with sexual crime convictions are not what has kept and will keep us safe. There will always be sexual offenders. Sadly, that will not change. Those who are convicted will serve their sentences and again become a part of society. An almost minuscule percentage of those will reoffend. The vast majority will not. And our modern-day attempts at monitoring and tracking and restricting and controlling every aspect of their lives will have little to nothing to do with whether they do or whether they don’t. Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

Federal Judge stops enforcement of Michigan SORA during coronavirus crisis

By Mark Hicks . . . A federal judge is commanding state authorities to stop enforcing rules under the Michigan Sex Offender Registry Act during the coronavirus pandemic. According to an interim order U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland issued Monday, officials are “preliminarily enjoined from enforcing registration, verification, school zone, and fee violations of (the act) that occurred or may occur from February 14, 2020, until the current crisis has ended, and thereafter until registrants are notified of what duties they have under SORA going forward.” On Valentine’s Day, Cleland declared the act unconstitutional and urged the state Legislature to move to bring the law into compliance. Under the February decision offenders would still have had to report to their local law enforcement agency or state police post through mid-May, while orders encompassing Cleland’s ruling were drafted by the parties. After that, unless the state Legislature acts, the Sex Offender Registry Act would no longer be enforceable against those who offended before 2011. Read full article Read summary from MI-ACLU Read the full article

[narsolstuff]

Registrants face stark choices as coronavirus risks grow

By Dawn R. Wolfe . . . A patchwork approach to the nation’s sex offense registry laws is leaving many of the 900,000 people on the country’s registries with a stark choice as COVID-19 sweeps the country: risk their lives or risk their freedom. This week, a California man had to decide between putting his and his 65-year-old parents’ health at risk or potentially going to prison. Another is already in violation of his state’s law because he spent more than three days in the hospital with his pregnant spouse without first appearing at his local police department to report that he would be away from home. If he had left the hospital to try to report, he wouldn’t have been allowed to return because of the risk of spreading coronavirus. In Rochester, New York, a man on a registry called his local police department to tell them he had symptoms of COVID-19. He was told to report in person anyway. While many of the country’s law enforcement agencies are finding ways to modify how they administer their sex offense registry laws, others are defying public health directives by forcing people to crowd into police stations in close contact with each other, members of the public, and law enforcement officials. A survey by The Appeal of actions being taken by states and agencies across the country found what Mary Sue Molnar, an advocate for reform of Texas’s registry laws, called a “patchwork of registering requirements” that, in many cases, are leaving people with past sex offense convictions in a dangerous legal limbo. The Oregon State Police have suspended in-person registrations and now require phone registration. In Texas, according to Molnar, executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice, “there is no statewide policy regarding in-person registration and individual registering offices are conducting registration as they see fit.” Some law enforcement agencies are moving to phone or email reporting while others are still requiring registrants to appear in person. Per its website, Douglas County, Nebraska, still required people to report in person as of March 27, while in Washington State, Snohomish County was suspending “services” to people on the registry until April 6. Sioux City, Iowa, Jackson County, Missouri, and the Virginia State Police were also telling registrants and would-be registrants to get in touch by phone or online. Defense attorneys in St. Louis and Pittsburgh told The Appeal that both St. Louis and the Pennsylvania State Police have suspended in-person reporting. Read full article Read the full article