IN- Sex offfender registry director found in contempt of court

The DOC -typical of the mentality of it- places itself above the law. In the hierarchy of law the DOC -one agency of the Executive Branch of government- is below the judicial system another Branch of Government. Law sets the procedure (appeal in this case, only a higher court can overturn a lower court) and the DOC ignored the law. i.e., failed to follow the law and relied on its own interpretation of a statute. Here it is easy to see contempt of court.

2-2-2009 Indiana:

Editor’s note: In 2007, Morgan County Superior Court I Judge G. Thomas Gray approved a request by the defendant to keep his real name off of court records and be referred to as “John Doe”.

The director of the Indiana Department of Corrections Sex Registry Division has been given 24 hours to comply with a court order to remove a county resident from the state’s sex offender list.

If Brent Myers, director of registration and victim services at the DOC, which is in charge of the registry, doesn’t comply, he will go to jail until he does comply, said Morgan County Superior Court I Judge G. Thomas Gray Monday during a hearing.

The judge ordered the Myers to return to court at 9 a.m. Tuesday morning. If Doe’s name is not removed from the registry, Myers will go to jail, Gray said.

Gray told the DOC’s attorney, Michael Barns, they had presented no evidence during the contempt hearing held this (Monday) morning to cause him to reverse his order of March 17, 2008. He said the law allows 30 days to appeal a court decision and since the DOC did not appeal, the judge said they had forfeited their right of appeal.

Unless a higher court intervenes, Myers will have no choice, but to remove the man known in court documents as “John Doe” or go to jail.

Doe’s attorney, Steven Litz, asked Myers, who has been in charge of the registry for three years, why he had not followed the judge’s order.

Myers said that, when he received the order, an investigation was performed by the DOC into the facts of the case. He said that after the investigation, it was determined the DOC could not comply with the order, because it contradicts state law. Myers said Doe’s case was discussed with the DOC’s attorney at the time, and at least two letters were sent to the county informing it of the decision. Neither Myers nor his attorney had copies of the letters, nor did Litz, the court, or the state.

Myers said Doe’s victim was 12 years or younger and Doe was older than 18 at the time of the offense, which under state law keeps him on the registry for life.

Litz said the law allows that someone who pleads guilty to sexual battery as a D felony could petition the court to have their name taken off the registry.

Myers said that law went into effect in 1997 and Doe’s crime occurred in 1995, so it did not fall under that specific law.

The DOC’s attorney asked Myers if he felt it would be unlawful for the DOC to remove Doe’s name. Myers said yes, it would be. Under questioning by Barns, Myers said the judge’s order put the DOC in an awkward position because the department, under the law, has no authority to remove a person from the registry.

During summation, Litz said there are ways for someone, including the government agencies, to appeal a decision they believe to unfair. In this case, other than sending two letter, of which there is no record, the DOC did nothing he said. Litz also took issue with the DOC doing its own investigation of a case. He asked the judge to take immediate steps to enforce his order.

Barns said the sex offender registry is set by law and the DOC had two choices, follow the judge’s order or follow the law. He admitted they were late in responding, but the fact remained that the DOC cannot remove Doe from the list.

After the hearing. Barns said he would discuss the matter with others at the DOC. He said they have two choices, to appeal the order or to remove Doe from the registry. ..News Source.. by Keith Rhoades krhoades@reportert.com