Now starts the fun, Missouri enacted this Halloween law, and provided NO METHOD of notifying registered offenders of the requirements of the law. ALL sex offender laws MANDATE that the State notify the registrant BEFORE prosecuting them for violating such laws. So sayeth the U.S. Supreme court. With that said, here is the first report of Missouri violating RSO rights by arresting them:
11-1-2008 Missouri:
Jefferson County — More than half of the sex offenders police visited in Jefferson County on Friday did not follow the latest laws intended to protect children on Halloween night.
Many, when confronted by detectives, said they did not know they were supposed to turn off their outdoor lights, post signs saying they aren't giving out candy and be at their homes between 5 and 10:30 p.m.
Offenders in Jefferson County were notified of the new laws during routine 90-day check-ins with police to verify their addresses, according to Jefferson County Sgt. Gary Higginbotham.
-Hummm, do they have PROOF that these registrants were told the exact things they must do? And, were these 90 day check-ins before or after the restrictions were OVERTURNED by the 8th Circuit court. Up until the law was put back into effect, registrants were under the belief it was unconstitutional by the prior District court decision.
"There are so many sex offenders in Jefferson County, we want them to know we haven't forgotten about them," said Higginbotham, who headed up a special task force that visited sex offenders to check compliance. "What worries me more is when they are not at their residence."
Officers visited about 20 addresses to check on sex offenders convicted of child-related offenses such as rape and molestation. In one case, a registered sex offender had Halloween decorations on his fence and home. When officers arrived, they found the required sign folded and tucked into his back door. The sex offender told officers the law did not specify how the sign was to be displayed.
-I must admit, thats thinking...
In another case, an offender agreed to let officers search his computer after they found his porch light on and questioned him for not having a sign posted. They found "questionable images" on the computer and seized it for further investigation.
-Hummm, what is the connection between "porch light & no sign" and possible images on his computer to warrant asking to search the computer?
At other homes, sex offenders were in compliance. One had posted a handmade cardboard sign that said "Not giving out candy."
..News Source.. by Christine Byers, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
November 1, 2008
MO- Many sex offenders failed to follow Halloween laws
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where will it end? This country always has to have an underdog to bully up on...women, blacks, gays, and now RSO's. the pendulum will swing once again and it will be a new group taking the crap end of the stick from main line media and politicians. God help our country!
This law is such a mess, and so ill-defined that even a bad lawyer should be able to get any violation kicked out.
If the Halloween restrictions are printed on the registration form he signed, then the offender has no defense. Otherwise the police will have to prove they advised the offender after the law went into effect, then again after the district court ruling, then again after the stay by the 8th Circuit.
As predicted, police will use these trivial criminal violations of legal conduct to expand their authority. A burning porch light is a non-compliant sex offender who must be hiding something on his computer.
I don't know why he let them in his house, but unless there was something in "plain sight" there was no probable cause to search and seize his computer. There is no nexus between a porch light and recognized exigent circumstances. There is no nexus between a porch light and probable cause to issue a search warrant. The only nexus is "profiling".
This should be Exhibit A for the ACLU.
Post a Comment