I write to clarify and correct the public record created by recent reporting and editorial comment on my efforts to obtain “Sexually Violent Offender” designations for certain convicted sex offenders under New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”).

In my view, your coverage loses sight of what is and must always be my number one priority here, to do everything and anything I can under the law to protect our community and its residents from the obvious risks and concerns associated with convicted sex offenders living among us. Part and parcel of this responsibility is to ensure that convicted sex offenders are properly classified under SORA when they register with New York state so that we here in Chautauqua County can determine the level of restrictions, and degree and length of reporting, to be imposed upon that person, as well as the extent of information which may be shared with the concerned public.

This process requires determination of (i) a convicted sex offender’s “risk level,” a score-based assessment created under SORA to predict the likelihood that a sex offender may commit more sex-related crimes while living in our community, and (ii) certain important and consequential “designations” based upon that person’s current and prior criminal convictions.

One critical designation under SORA is that of “Sexually Violent Offender,” a classification which recognizes the inherent violent nature of certain sex crimes, many of which concern sexual assaults committed against children, by requiring lifetime registration, increased monitoring by law enforcement, and disclosures to the public — all heightened safeguards designed to protect communities from the risks and dangers posed by the threat of repeat violent sex offenders. Without such a designation, the registration requirements enabling us to track a convicted violent sex offender will eventually expire or be judicially terminated at which point that person’s whereabouts and activities can no longer be monitored by law enforcement; that individual will, in effect, disappear into the community and from our collective view unless and until they later reoffend – a worst-case scenario to be avoided to the best of our abilities under existing law. For these reasons, the Sexually Violent Offender designation is a critically important tool in our legal efforts to prevent these persons from causing further harm in Chautauqua County and elsewhere.

All of these concerns and considerations are at play when an out-of-state sex offender relocates into our county. In that situation, he or she is required to register as a Sex Offender in the state and it is then on me and my office to seek the appropriate risk-level classification and designations described above, necessitating that we obtain records of the sex offender’s underlying out-of-state convictions. In some instances, due to the passage of time and/or another state’s inadequate document retention policies, we’re unable to obtain complete records of a sex offender’s underlying convictions and are therefore not able to present the full nature and extent of the crimes that person committed and harm caused to his or her victims before he or she came to live among us. But this does not mean that we throw up our hands and concede that this critical designation doesn’t apply.

To the contrary, given the extreme risks presented to the community when an out-of-state sex offender relocates into the County to live among us and our families, it is incumbent upon law enforcement to take the very opposite approach of what your editorial urges; that is, to utilize all legally-available means to obtain the Sexually Violent Offender designation, because this imposes the heightened protections necessary to reduce, as much as we are able, the potential for an offender to harm again. To act otherwise, for me, is unacceptable. I and my office are always going to make use of the limited (and in my personal view, inadequate) tools provided to law enforcement by our representatives in Albany to fight for the full extent of legal protections safeguarding our residents and their families.

The import of your editorial suggests that, in aggressively seeking Sexually Violent Offender designations, I am, in effect, repeatedly banging my head against the wall without success and at the expense of the County. That’s just plain wrong. Prior to the Appellate Division’s recent ruling which we vigorously opposed, and which apparently inspired your editorial, NY courts were legally required to apply this designation to those offenders whose out-of-state convictions were for registerable felony-level crimes. This is the legal basis on which we relied to successfully fight for and obtain many Sexually Violent Offender designations despite the shoddy record-keeping practices of other states. Unfortunately, that’s now been taken away as an end-result of the Appellate Division’s recent ruling.

Those designations are now considered unconstitutional and in violation of each sex offender’s Due Process rights unless we can prove that the out-of-state convictions satisfy NY’s requirements for sexually violent felony designation.

In short, we are now without an important tool in our limited legal arsenal for ensuring that Chautauqua County residents and law enforcement have as much information as possible for as long as possible regarding sex offenders living here in our community. While I will continue to use all available legal means to properly classify sex offenders for purposes of protecting our community, I am not, as your editorial suggests, continuing to seek Sexually Violent Offender designations in violation of the Appellate Division’s ruling.

Thank you for bringing this important development in our crime-fighting efforts to the public’s attention.

Jason Schmidt is Chautauqua County district attorney.