Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hill

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division

December 15, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
FREDERICK LUGENE HILL, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SARA DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendant Hill's motion to dismiss the indictment, ECF No. 13. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED and the indictment, ECF No. 9, DISMISSED.

         BACKGROUND [1]

         Hill had been convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault in Henry County, Illinois on August 27, 1987. Compl. Aff. ¶ 7. As a consequence of this conviction, Hill was required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). Indictment. By June 2016, he was living in Rock Island, Illinois. Id. ¶ 3. He was evicted from his Rock Island residence on June 3, 2016. Id. On July 29, 2016, he told Rock Island policemen that he had been living in Davenport, Iowa since July 5, 2016. Id. at ¶ 5.

         The criminal complaint in this matter was filed on August 31, 2016, alleging that Hill had failed to register as a sex offender as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2250. ECF No. 1. An indictment followed on September 20, 2016, alleging the same thing.

         DISCUSSION

         Hill argues that the indictment must be dismissed because venue does not lie in the Central District of Illinois. Mot. Dismiss 1.

         I. Legal Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

         A party to a criminal proceeding may raise by pretrial motion any objection, defense, or request that the court can determine without a trial on the merits. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(1). One such defense is that the prosecution has been instituted in an improper venue. Id. 12(b)(3)(A)(i). In considering such a motion, a court assumes all facts in the indictment are true and views those facts in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Yashar, 166 F.3d 873, 880 (7th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Pitt-Des Moines, Inc., 970 F.Supp. 1346, 1349 (N.D.Ill. 1997) (comparing a motion to dismiss an indictment to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss); United States v. Andrews, 749 F.Supp. 1520, 1521 (N.D. Ill.1990).

         II. Analysis

         The disagreement in this case stems from the government's insistence that Hill ought to be tried for failing to update his sex offender registration in a venue where, concededly, he had no obligation to do so. Resp. Mot. Dismiss 10, ECF No. 14.

         The United States Constitution, federal statute, and the federal rules of criminal procedure require a federal defendant to be tried in the federal judicial district where that crime is alleged to have occurred. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 (“Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.”); id. amend. VI (guaranteeing a defendant a trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district where the crime shall have been committed”); 18 U.S.C. § 3237 (“Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed.”); Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (“Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed.”). For venue in a given judicial district to be proper, “[t]he government must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence . . . that the offense occurred in the district in which it was brought.” United States v. Herrera-Ordones, 190 F.3d 504, 509 (7th Cir. 1999). Disputed facts are construed in the light most favorable to the government. Id.

         Anyone who is required to register as a sex offender under SORNA who “knowingly fails to register or update a registration as required by [SORNA]” breaks the law, provided that he has also traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2250. SORNA, in turn, requires that a sex offender

not later than 3 business days after each change of name, residence, employment, or student status, appear in person in at least 1 jurisdiction involved pursuant to subsection (a) of this section and inform that jurisdiction of all changes in the information required for that offender in the sex offender registry. That jurisdiction shall immediately provide ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.