Louisiana House Bill HB637

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14
• Report Pass: 4/14/14
• Engrossed: 4/28/14
• Refer: 4/29/14
• Report Pass: 5/19/14
• Enrolled: 5/27/14
• Chaptered: 6/12/14
• Passed: 6/12/14

Caption

Provides relative to the use of monies appropriated to the Sex Offender Registry Technology Fund

Impact

The impact of HB 637 primarily revolves around the financial management of sex offender and child predator registration systems. The bill reallocates funds to the office of the attorney general and mandates that the Division of the Office of Justice ensures that residual funds in the Sex Offender Registry Technology Fund are appropriately managed. This means a portion of the funds will be utilized for necessary personnel support while also addressing operational maintenance of the systems used to track and monitor registered sex offenders.

Summary

House Bill 637 is a piece of legislation focused on amendments to the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the fees paid as a condition of probation and the management of funds allocated for the Sex Offender Registry Technology Fund. The bill specifies that a monthly fee of eleven dollars is required for individuals placed on supervised probation, with the collected fees directed towards enhancing technology and resources related to sex offender registration. This reflects a strategic effort to improve systematic oversight of sex offender compliance in Louisiana.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be supportive, particularly among those advocating for stronger law enforcement measures relating to sex offenders. Proponents argue that it will enhance the operational capabilities of both local law enforcement and state systems concerning sex offender management. However, some concerns may arise regarding funding allocation and whether it adequately addresses the technological needs of the systems intended to keep communities safe.

Contention

Notable points of contention revolve around how effectively funds will be distributed to local law enforcement agencies for sex offender monitoring and whether it will provide enough resources to address the complexities involved in managing sex offender registries. Questions arise about the balance between operational costs and the effectiveness of the technology implemented, as well as the ethical implications of increased fees for probation conditions—the latter being a point that might draw criticism from advocacy groups concerned with justice reform.