It isn't who you are but where you live that determines how easy it is to get information on sex offenders in Washington state.

As part of a statewide audit of access to public records, newspapers across the state sent reporters to county sheriff's departments asking for information on sex offenders living near their homes. The requesters did not identify themselves as newspaper reporters; they were attempting to see how ordinary citizens requesting the information would be treated.

Most - 84 percent - of the sheriff's departments honored the requests at least partially, while 16 percent of the requests were denied outright. But confusion about what could and could not be released was a common reaction, regardless of the size of the sheriff's office.

The reception received by those requesting information varied from friendly and informative to practically accusatory.

According to state law approved earlier this year, sheriff's departments are not only required to maintain a list of Level III sex offenders that's accessible to the public, but they also must provide it to local newspapers and on their Web sites.

The departments also are protected from any liability that occurs from releasing the information.

Convicted sex offenders are classified in one of three levels, based on the probability they will reoffend. Level III offenders are considered the most dangerous.

The newspaper employees who made requests were instructed to go to the county sheriff's office and ask for the names of sex offenders near their homes. If the records were not kept in a way that made it possible to respond to the request, the newspaper employees were to ask for the names of sex offenders in an entire city or county.

State Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, introduced Senate Bill 6143 after Jennie Osborn, a 15-year-old girl who attended the same high school as his daughter, was murdered by sex offender Joseph Rosenow.

The 46-year-old convict had sexually assaulted two women at knifepoint. Later, Rosenow moved to rural Mason County, where the community notification was insufficient, Sheldon said.

Osborn's parents were not aware of Rosenow's record when their daughter befriended Rosenow's daughter, and they thought nothing of allowing her to accept a ride from him.

Sheldon wasn't surprised by the number of agencies that denied requests for information.

"I think there's not enough knowledge of the law," he said.

The experience of the newspaper auditors across the state supports that view.

In Franklin County, a reporter carrying his 4-year-old daughter was told by a Pasco Police Department sergeant that he would have to give his name, birth date and address to get information on sex offenders in the neighborhood he asked about.

That demand came even though the law provides that individuals requesting public information do not have to say why they want it.

In Lewis County, however, the reporter was never asked for identification or for the reason she wanted the information. Detective Milo Simmons of the Lewis County Sheriff's Department showed her a list of 300 sex offenders arranged by city.

The reporter couldn't make photocopies, but she was allowed to jot down the names of registered sex offenders who lived within six blocks of her home. And the detective volunteered information on two men he was particularly worried about and warned her to beware of them.

Simmons also gave the reporter a business card, information about how the state compiles sex offender information, a packet of safety tips and a copy of a safety presentation the county gives to neighborhood groups.

But other sheriff's departments that denied the requests for sex offender lists cited concern for the offenders.

In Grant County, for example, the reporter was told by a sergeant that the information was being denied, saying, "I have no control over how it will be used."

And in Columbia County, the sheriff's department released information about Level III offenders but balked at giving information about Level I offenders.

The reporter there was told: "We used to release the names of the Level I offenders, but people started harassing them, so we discontinued that practice. These people have kids and are trying to get on with their lives."

The president of the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, a lobbying group for the state's rank-and-file law enforcement officers, said concern about residents retaliating against sex offenders living in their neighborhoods is largely unfounded.

"I don't really think that John Q. Public would go out and torch somebody's house," said Mike Amos, a training sergeant for the Yakima Police Department who spent four years handling sex crimes. "This information definitely needs to be put out in the public."

While some counties technically complied with the law, their procedures made it nearly impossible to get usable information.

In Snohomish County, the reporter was shown a large book with the names and photos of sex offenders living within her ZIP code. Not only was she not allowed to make copies, she also was not allowed to take notes.

"You'll have to rely on your memory," she was told.