Union County man charged again for failing to update sex-offender registry address

Shane Michael Doane, 39, was charged again after investigators said he failed to keep his Megan’s Law registry address current, a second compliance case tied to the same Union County residence information this year. Police said Doane had been staying with his girlfriend and child at a Pine Bark Lane address in Mifflinburg while the address listed on the sex-offender registry remained a Market Street apartment in Lewisburg.

The latest case began after police received information on April 16 that Doane was not actually living at the Lewisburg address. Investigators said he had left the apartment on March 19 after being released from prison earlier this year. The new charges followed an earlier check of the same Lewisburg address on Feb. 3, when police had already received a tip that Doane was not living there. Doane’s mother reportedly told officers then that he had not lived at the apartment since he went to jail in 2023.

Doane is on the registry because of an April 2013 conviction for unlawful contact with a minor. Prosecutors filed two felony counts of failure to provide accurate registration information and one misdemeanor count of statement under penalty. The case shows how a registry violation can become a repeat-enforcement matter when officers keep getting tips about where a registrant is actually living versus where the paperwork says he lives.

Under Megan’s Law, the address on file is not a formality. Registrants are required to keep their information accurate, and a move, a release from custody or a change in living arrangements can trigger a new obligation to update the record. In this case, police said the listed Lewisburg apartment no longer matched Doane’s real living situation by late March, even though the registry still pointed to that address in early April.

The case also underscores how compliance monitoring works locally in Union County: officers are acting on tips, checking listed addresses and following up when a registrant appears to have moved. Here, that scrutiny stretched across both Lewisburg and Mifflinburg, linking the county’s two largest boroughs in one public-safety case and raising the same basic question twice this year: whether the registry reflects where a person truly lives, or just where the record says he should be.