Hampton Man Indicted for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender
Jamie Melendez, 37, of Hampton, New Hampshire, was indicted on one count of failure to register as a sex offender, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
CONCORD – Jamie Melendez, 37, of Hampton, was indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of failure to register as a sex offender, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Hampshire announced on September 3, 2026.
According to the charging documents, Melendez was required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) but knowingly failed to do so after traveling from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. The charge carries a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison.
The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Heather M. Anderson and Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew T. Hunter, with investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service and assistance from the Hampton Police Department. The case is part of Project Safe Childhood, a Department of Justice initiative.
Melendez is scheduled to appear in federal court in Concord at a later date. The details in the charging documents are allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 20:30current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.