A Call for Action to Align Virginia’s SOR Classifications
with Federal SORNA Standards

A respectful request to amend § 9.1-902(A) of the Code of Virginia to strike
§ 18.2-370.1 from subdivision (1) (Tier III offense) and insert it under the
Tier II offense definition within the same section, to match 34 U.S.C. § 20911(3).

Dear Delegate or Senator: 

I write to request your consideration of a targeted amendment to Virginia’s Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry classification structure. Specifically, I ask the General Assembly to amend § 9.1-902 to move § 18.2-370.1 from the Tier III offense definition to the Tier II offense definition. Under current law, Tier III placement triggers a lifetime duty to register. This change would align Virginia’s tiering approach with the federal tier framework in 34 U.S.C. § 20911(3) of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

Under the federal SORNA tiering framework, the United States Department of Justice SMART Office (Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking) identifies § 18.2-370.1 as a Tier II offense.

This proposal does not seek to change the elements of the offense, reduce its felony classification, lessen criminal penalties, or eliminate the requirement that qualifying offenders register with the Virginia Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry. It addresses only whether the offense's current placement within Virginia's registry tiers remains consistent with the statutory framework the General Assembly itself adopted in 2020.

In that year, the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 579 (2020 Acts of Assembly, ch. 829), which, according to the official summary prepared by the Division of Legislative Services, changed the classifications to match the number used under federal law and redesignated the classifications as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III offenses. The enacted legislation retained § 18.2-370.1 within Tier III, the Commonwealth's most severe registry category, which carries quarterly verification, lifetime registration, and categorical exclusion from the ordinary petition process under § 9.1-910.

My research has identified a specific inconsistency that I believe warrants the General Assembly's attention. Under the federal SORNA tiering framework, the United States Department of Justice's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (the SMART Office) identifies § 18.2-370.1 as a Tier II offense.

I believe the 2020 placement was an oversight, resulting from the carryover of Virginia's prior "violent" and "nonviolent" classification language rather than from the statutory distinction between §§ 18.2-370 and 18.2-370.1.

This request is limited to registry classification. It does not seek to reduce criminal penalties or weaken child protection. It asks Virginia to better calibrate tiers to offense conduct and risk, so that the Commonwealth’s most intensive lifetime registration framework remains focused on the highest-severity offenses. Virginia law already distinguishes § 18.2-370 from § 18.2-370.1. Section 18.2-370 addresses indecent liberties involving children under 15. Section 18.2-370.1 applies to conduct involving a child under 18 in a custodial or supervisory relationship and is expressly separated from § 18.2-370.

My request is informed by lived experience. I was convicted under § 18.2-370.1 for an inappropriate encounter at age 22 with a 16-year-old student while I was a first-year teacher. I accept responsibility, completed all court-ordered requirements, and do not pose a risk to minors. Yet because § 18.2-370.1 is currently included in the Tier III offense definition, my registration duty is for life.

A Tier II classification would preserve accountability and oversight for decades while creating a structured, court-reviewed endpoint for individuals who demonstrate sustained compliance. Virginia already has tier-based verification and petition rules that would continue to apply, including annual verification for Tier I and Tier II offenders and an established petition process for Tier II removal eligibility at the appropriate time.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or your staff to present this research and answer any questions, and I would equally welcome the referral of this question to the Virginia State Crime Commission if you believe further study is warranted before a bill is introduced

Sincerely,

Christopher Aldana