January 13, 2009

ND- Judge: Legal requirements for sex offenders 'confusing'

Convicted even though, addmitted by the judge, that state laws were the cause of the confusion. Hopefully some good hearted lawyer will help in an appeal of this dumb decision; note, 82 other s were recently in the same boat! Are lawmakers trying to protect the public, or, get registrants behind bars! There needs to be a -reasonable man standard- applied to this law as well.

1-13-2009 North Dakota:

Legal requirements designed to keep police informed when registered sex offenders change their place of residence or employment are “confusing” and should be explained in simpler language to those offenders, Grand Forks District Judge Deb Kleven said today.

Kleven made the observation during a sentencing hearing for Randy P. Stenerson, one of 82 registered sex offenders living in Grand Forks, who has been jailed at the Grand Forks County Correctional Center the past three months after his arrest for failing to meet registration requirements.

Stenerson, 51, has lived in motels, at the Grand Forks Mission and, for a brief period last summer, beneath the Sorlie Bridge, since coming to Grand Forks in 2006 following his release from the state penitentiary. He was charged last fall with failing to notify Grand Forks police of a change in his residence, a charge later amended to failure to register a change in employment. He pleaded guilty Dec. 4 under terms of a plea agreement that would allow him to avoid a return to prison.

Stenerson was arrested Sept. 11, two days after his employment status changed, according to Daniel Borgen, his court-appointed attorney. Borgen said that Stenerson, like previous clients he has represented in similar circumstances, was confused about when he was supposed to notify authorities about the change.

The notification requirements “are eight columns long in the North Dakota Century Code,” Borgen said, and are difficult for the lay reader to comprehend.

“I agree with you,” Kleven said, adding that the requirements can be confusing to police and prosecutors, too, and that she has had to correct court records in several such cases. She suggested that a handbook be prepared detailing the requirements in simpler language.

Kleven sentenced Stenerson to 18 months of supervised probation, with credit for the 124 days he has been in jail. She also directed him to abide by about 20 conditions of parole, including directives to “seek and maintain employment” and submit to electronic monitoring if requested by his probation officer.

Asked whether he had somewhere to stay if he was released, Stenerson indicated that he hoped to return to the Mission. He said he believed he would qualify for readmission there if he was placed on supervised probation.

“It’s cold out there,” Kleven said, urging him not to return to the Sorlie Bridge.

“I don’t want to go back there,” Stenerson said with a grim smile.

He said he was reluctant to move in with relatives in the area because of the media attention he attracts as a high-risk sex offender, but he has “a friend I can stay with a few days” until he makes longer-term arrangements.

Before releasing him, Kleven reminded Stenerson that he is obligated by state law to notify the police of any change in his residence and employment, among other requirements.

“It is complicated,” she said, “and I agree with you it should be in layman’s terms.”

In an interview following the sentencing, Kleven said that state lawmakers “change the requirements every session, and there’s nothing these people have that explains” what they’re supposed to do.

“It’s pretty routine to have people in here who changed jobs and didn’t realize” all that was required of them under the notification law, she said. They did commit offenses that required them to be registered as sex offenders, but such administrative violations aren’t on a par with “the clear-cut cases of some who move here from out of state and don’t register” because they’re deliberately trying to evade the legal requirements. ..News Source.. by Chuck Haga Grand Forks Herald

No comments: