Faulty language meant to reform Connecticut’s address verification process for individuals on the sex offender registry found its way into the budget implementer, only to be stripped out when Representatives Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, and Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, of the Judiciary Committee pointed out the language did not reflect the intent of the underlying bill and tried to have it amended during the chaotic budget process.

Senate Bill 1500 sought to reform how those on the sex offender registry verify their address and was passed out of the Judiciary committee with an understanding that the bill would be worked on further in the Senate until it could properly address the underlying issues and be brought to a vote.

Currently, the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) mails an address verification form to registrants every 90 days. They must then fill out and return the form within ten days of the postmarked date. Failure to return the form within 10 days is an automatic Class D felony.

According to testimony submitted by the Connecticut Chapter of the ACLU and the organization One Standard of Justice, which seeks to ensure those convicted of sexual offenses are treated fairly, the 10-day return requirement results in roughly 200 convictions per year. Registrants can email the verification, although proponents say that many, particularly the homeless, do not have access to email and most forms are still sent via the post office.

The problem, according to proponents of the bill, is multi-pronged: if the individual is homeless, there is little assurance they will receive the form; if there is a mistake in the mail and the form isn’t delivered or is delayed, the individual will face a felony charge for something that is outside of their control; and lastly, the time period for returning the form is too short, and the punishment too severe.

The bill, which passed out of committee, allowed registrants to submit their information over the phone, increased the amount of time they had to return the DESPP form from ten days to twenty, lowered the penalty for not returning the form to an infraction if the failure was “unintentional,” and that an arrest warrant for failure to return a form would only be issued if that failure was deemed “intentional.”

Rep. Fishbein, who voted against the bill in committee, said he wanted it on the record that the system needed to be fixed and that the bill was a “work in progress.” Stafstrom, on the other hand, voted to pass the bill out of committee, and it was agreed that the language would be worked on and revised. 

What happened between then and when the budget came out was essentially a failure of communication between whoever was working on SB 1500’s language and the drafters of the budget.

While language in the budget implementer did increase the number of days a registrant has to return the form and lowered the penalty to a Class A misdemeanor, it did not reflect the language that was passed out of committee, and instead slotted in language drafters believed would be acceptable for passage. It contained no changes allowing offenders to register by phone or putting the form on the DESPP website so a registrant can print it and mail it in. 

However, the language also created two potential charges someone could be convicted of if they failed to return a form on time, instead of just one charge. 

According to the budget language, a person who failed to return the address verification form would be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, unless they could show that they didn’t receive it, whereupon it would be mailed to them again. Then, if they didn’t return it within twenty days, they would be convicted of the Class A misdemeanor, unless their failure to return the form was “intentional,” which would then warrant a Class D felony.

According to Fishbein, it sets people up for a difficult defense against two charges: having to prove they didn’t receive something and having to argue intentionality.

“Under the present law, it’s a Class D felony. It’s one charge and one conviction. Under the new law, even if you didn’t get the form, you would be convicted with a Class A misdemeanor, then given the form, and then potentially charged and convicted of a Class D felony,” Fishbein said. “That’s not how the process should work.”

“We were dealing with SB 1500. At that time, I had no idea this would end up in the implementer, but apparently whoever was working on the implementer language was not communicating with whoever was working on SB 1500, and the language ended up in the budget with the two charges,” Fishbein continued.

Stafstrom and Fishbein’s efforts to fix the language, however, proved a bridge too far in the final days of session, with lawmakers reportedly resistant to reworking the budget to push through a reform for sex offenders. In the end, it was just stripped out entirely.

During public hearing Cindy Prizio, president of One Standard of Justice, recounted how one man who was convicted of an offense in 1989 in Florida was arrested in his West Haven home because his letter was returned one day late. According to Prizio, the violation occurred during COVID, but he was not arrested until “a year ago.”

“1989 was his conviction,” Prizio said during public hearing. “You think a late letter should send him to prison?”

Several individuals submitted written testimony of address verification forms arriving to their addresses late, or their responses being delayed due to post office problems. One individual recounted how he never received a form in 2019 and when he contacted the registry, he was told to wait for them to send a second form. He waited, returned the second form, and was then arrested in 2022 because the 2019 form was returned late.

“This SOR address verification process needs to be revised and fixed, so people are not being arrested from a broken process of submitting a letter through the post office and being blamed for the process taking too slow,” he wrote.

“Our bill was a sensible effort to reform a process that is giving automatic convictions to people for lost mail and other issues that are outside of their control, that can convict the homeless simply because they don’t have an address,” Prizio said in an emailed comment. “Leadership agreed on compromise language that had bipartisan support and dozens of co-sponsors; and we believe if brought to a vote, we would have won. Of course I am disappointed that we did not succeed this year, however I am encouraged by the progress made on the bill. We will be back next year.”

“I think something should be done here to make it easier for these people to register, especially if somebody is homeless or something like that,” Fishbein said. “There was some pretty intense testimony at the public hearing about people not getting forms and getting charged, because there’s no defense: you didn’t return the form, you’re guilty of the Class D felony.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.