United States v. Kimble
2012 WL 5906863
W.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Kimble is a pre-Act sex offender charged with failure to register under SORNA; he moved from New York to Florida in 2009, allegedly failing to update his registration between April 2009 and January 2010; he had prior New York rape conviction (1983) and was released from prison in 1999; he registered in New York but later relocated to Florida and sought welfare benefits there; the government relies on post-Reynolds timing and the SMART Guidelines to apply SORNA to him; the court referred pretrial motions to a magistrate judge and now adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendations after de novo review; the key issues concern SORNA’s applicability to pre-Act offenders, the vagueness of “resides,” and suppression of statements from a Florida interview; the defendant challenged SORNA’s constitutionality and the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation; the court ultimately denies the motion to dismiss and the motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA applies to Kimble as a pre-Act offender | Kimble argues SORNA does not apply absent proper AG specification restarted by Reynolds | Kimble asserts no retroactive applicability before Final Rule | SORNA applies to Kimble; SMART Guidelines retroactively fixed applicability |
| Whether SORNA’s vagueness is unconstitutional as applied to Kimble | Kimble contends ‘resides’ is vague for transient individuals | Government argues substantial, not vague, notice from registration requirements | Not void for vagueness; term ‘resides’ sufficiently clear under circumstances |
| Whether Kimble received due process regarding prior NY Level III designation | Kimble claims past NY designation violated due process | He received notice and a redetermination hearing with counsel | Due process not violated; redetermination satisfied notice and opportunity to be heard |
| Whether the SMART Guidelines and APA procedures validly retroactively apply SORNA to Kimble | Interim rule/SMART Guidelines improperly bypass APA | SMART Guidelines valid; retroactivity properly implemented | SMART Guidelines valid; retroactivity effective 2008; Kimble subject to SORNA after August 1, 2008 |
| Whether Kimble’s custodial interrogation statements should be suppressed for invoking right to counsel | Kimble invoked right to counsel during interrogation | His remark was ambiguous, not an unambiguous request for counsel | Statement not unambiguous invocation; interrogation may continue; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stevenson, 676 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2012) (SMART Guidelines retroactivity authority; pre-Act applicability)
- United States v. Van Buren, 599 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (SORNA residency update obligation when residence changes)
- United States v. Bruffy, 466 Fed.Appx. 239 (4th Cir. 2012) (SORNA not unconstitutionally vague for transient offender)
- United States v. Utesch, 596 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 2010) (APA notice/harmless error analysis for agency rulemaking)
- United States v. Stevenson, 676 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2012) (retroactivity scope of SMART Guidelines)
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (U.S. 2012) (pre-Act offenders not subject to SORNA absent valid specifications)