2-7-2009 Kansas:
An inmate's claim he shouldn't be classified as a sex offender while in prison because he was never convicted of any sex offenses has been denied for failing to file the complaint in a timely manner.
The Kansas Court of Appeals, in a ruling published Friday but actually issued in August, said that Jeffrey Litzinger, 45, did not file an appeal of his classification within the 15-day window specified by the Kansas Department of Corrections grievance process and does not have grounds for an appeal.
Litzinger was convicted in Cloud County in 2004 of sale of drugs, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of anhydrous ammonia with intent to manufacture.
He'd also originally been charged with four counts of rape of a child younger than 14 years old, but those charges were dismissed.
On Dec. 6, 2004, KDOC officials classified Litzinger as a sex offender and began managing him as such, despite the fact he had never been convicted of a sex offense. It wasn't immediately clear what extra measures prison officials enact for inmates classified as sex offenders.
Litzinger filed a grievance with KDOC on July 20, 2006. In his suit, Litzinger's attorney argued he has been subject to "oblique threats and ridicule by other prisoners. Former friends and associates, thinking petitioner is a sex predator, have ostracized the petitioner."
Kansas law requires a prisoner to "exhaust all administrative remedies" established by prison officials before they are able to file a civil action, and one of the administrative regulations established by KDOC requires prisoners to file grievances within 15 days of the incident in question.
Litzinger argued that because his treatment due to his classification as a sex offender has been ongoing, the time limits did not apply.
District Judge Joe McCarville dismissed the case because it was outside the 15-day window specified. In the Appeals Court ruling, the justices sided with McCarville.
"Here, Litzinger challenges his initial classification as a sex offender, not the resulting conditions of his confinement," Justice Patrick McAnany wrote in the opinion.
According to the KDOC Web site, Litzinger is under post-incarceration supervision in Shawnee County. ..News Source.. by Jon Ruhlen - The Hutchinson News
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
JEFFREY LITZINGER, Appellant,
v.
L.E. BRUCE, et al., Appellees.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. K.A.R. 44-15-101b requires that a prisoner wishing to pursue a grievance against prison authorities must do so by filing the grievance within 15 days from the date of the discovery of the event giving rise to the grievance, but in no event later than 1 year after the event giving rise to the grievance.
2. K.S.A. 75-52,138 requires a prison inmate to exhaust all administrative remedies "established by rules and regulations promulgated by the secretary of corrections" before filing a civil action. K.S.A. 75-52,138 requires the prisoner to file with the petition proof that all administrative remedies have been exhausted. Courts demand strict compliance with these exhaustion requirements.
3. A prisoner in custody seeking relief pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501 must file his or her petition within 30 days from the date the administrative proceedings became final, but this period is tolled during the pendency of timely efforts to exhaust administrative remedies.
4. Under the facts presented, the appellant failed to file his grievance within 15 days of the date of discovering the event for which he filed the grievance, as required by K.A.R. 44-15-101b. Accordingly, the 30-day time limit for him to file his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition was not tolled, and the petition he eventually filed was untimely.
5. Although the appellant here contends that the 30-day time limitation for filing his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition does not apply because his treatment as a sex offender is ongoing, the gravamen of his petition is that he was wrongfully classified as a sex offender, not the resulting conditions of his confinement. Thus, the 30-day time limitation applies.
Appeal from Reno District Court; JOSEPH McCARVILLE, III, judge. Opinion filed August 29, 2008. Affirmed.
Sam S. Kepfield, of Hutchinson, for appellant.
Jon D. Graves, of Kansas Department of Corrections, of Hutchinson, for appellees.
Before McANANY, P.J., ELLIOTT and CAPLINGER, JJ.
McANANY, J.: Jeffrey Litzinger was charged with various drug crimes and rapes. He was convicted on drug charges, but the rape charges were dismissed. Litzinger was sentenced to prison.
On December 6, 2004, the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) approved a request to have Litzinger identified and managed as a sex offender. Litzinger requested an override, which the override panel denied on February 11, 2005.
On July 20, 2006, Litzinger filed a grievance with KDOC in which he challenged his classification as a sex offender. His grievance was denied at every administrative level, including the final denial by the Secretary of Corrections who, on August 16, 2006, mailed to Litzinger his decision upholding the sex-offender classification.
Litzinger brought the present district court action pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501 on November 6, 2006. KDOC moved to dismiss, arguing that Litzinger had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and had failed to file a timely complaint within 30 days of the final order. The district court sustained the motion, finding that Litzinger's cause of action arose on either December 6, 2004, or on February 11, 2005. K.A.R. 44-15-101b required that Litzinger file a grievance within 15 days from the date he discovered the event giving rise to the subject matter of the grievance. The court concluded that even if Litzinger were allowed to revive his claim by using the August 16, 2006, grievance denial as the triggering date, his suit was, nevertheless, untimely.
Litzinger appeals. He claims his petition was not untimely. He also claims the 30-day statutory time limitation does not apply to his claim.
We review the district court's order to determine whether its findings of fact are supported by substantial, competent evidence and whether those findings are sufficient to support its conclusions of law. Rice v. State, 278 Kan. 309, 320, 95 P.3d 994 (2004). The jurisdictional issue decided by the district court is an issue of law over which our review is unlimited. See Foster v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 281 Kan. 368, 369, 130 P.3d 560 (2006). Likewise, the exhaustion of administrative remedies issue is one of law over which our review is unlimited. Miller v. Kansas Dept. of S.R.S., 275 Kan. 349, 353, 64 P.3d 395 (2003).
Litzinger was required to file his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition within 30 days from the date the administrative proceedings became final, but that time can be tolled during the pendency of timely efforts to exhaust his administrative remedies. See K.S.A. 60-1501(b); Battrick v. State, 267 Kan. 389, 390-91, 985 P.2d 707 (1999). Grievances must be filed within 15 days from the date of the discovery of the event giving rise to the grievance, but in no event later than 1 year after the event giving rise to the grievance. K.A.R. 44-15-101b. K.S.A. 75-52,138 required Litzinger to exhaust all administrative remedies "established by rules and regulations promulgated by the secretary of corrections" before filing his civil action. See Laubach v. Roberts, 32 Kan. App. 2d 863, 868-69, 90 P.3d 961 (2004). Litzinger was required to attach to his petition proof that his administrative remedies had been exhausted. See K.S.A. 75-52,138. We have demanded strict compliance with these exhaustion requirements. See, e.g., Laubach, 32 Kan. App. 2d at 869.
K.S.A. 75-5210(f) and K.S.A. 75-5251 authorize the Secretary of KDOC to develop rules and regulations for its correctional institutions, including the Internal Management Policies and Procedures (IMPP). See Collier v. Nelson, 25 Kan. App. 2d 582, 584-85, 966 P.2d 1117, rev. denied 266 Kan. 1107 (1998).
Litzinger failed to appeal the February 11, 2005, decision of the override panel to continue managing him as a sex offender. IMPP 11-115(I)(C)(4)(a) requires that once a request for override has been decided by the panel, any further appeal by an inmate must proceed in accordance with IMPP 11-106(V). IMPP 11-106(V)(A) provides that an inmate may request the warden's review within 72 hours of receiving a classification decision. We find no evidence of such a request. Litzinger did not attach to his petition proof that he exhausted these remedies, as required by K.S.A. 75-52,138.
Furthermore, Litzinger failed to file his grievance within 15 days of the date of discovering the event for which he filed the grievance, as required by K.A.R. 44-15-101b. Litzinger's request for an override was denied on February 11, 2005. He did not begin the grievance process until July 20, 2006.
The 30-day time limit for Litzinger to file suit in the district court could be tolled during the pendency of timely attempts to exhaust his administrative remedies. Litzinger had 15 days from the denial of his override request to initiate the grievance process. He failed to pursue a grievance within this period. Accordingly, the 30-day time limit for Litzinger to file his petition was not tolled, and the petition he eventually filed was untimely. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding Litzinger's petition to be untimely.
Litzinger contends, however, that the 30-day time limitation for filing his petition does not apply to him because his condition of treatment as a sex offender is ongoing. He relies on Tonge v. Simmons, 27 Kan. App. 2d 1048, 11 P.3d 77, rev. denied 270 Kan. 904 (2000), for support.
In Tonge, several inmates escaped and later were captured. They were charged with aggravated escape from custody. They eventually entered guilty pleas. The disciplinary board ordered each of them to pay restitution of almost $2,000. The inmates commenced their grievances from the restitution orders, and their grievances were denied as untimely. The inmates brought actions in the district court. They did not challenge the underlying disciplinary actions, but contended that payment of the restitution orders through periodic garnishments of their prison accounts deprived them of sufficient funds to obtain necessary personal hygiene and health products. The district court reduced the restitution orders to about $1,100 each, and KDOC appealed, claiming the district court lacked jurisdiction to do so. On appeal this court held that the nature of the inmates' complaints related to the ongoing conditions of their confinement caused by the ongoing garnishments of their accounts by KDOC, and as a result their petitions were not time-barred.
We do not believe that Tonge applies. The court in Tonge noted:
"[T]he petitioners' grievances did not contest their guilt in violating K.A.R. 44-12-1001 or the imposition of the penalties associated with that disciplinary violation. Rather, the petitioners challenge only the resulting conditions of their confinement caused by the allegedly unreasonable execution of the penalty depriving them of the capacity to maintain personal hygiene." 27 Kan. App. 3d at 1050.
Here, Litzinger challenges his initial classification as a sex offender, not the resulting conditions of his confinement. His classification occurred long before he initiated his untimely grievance efforts. The only references in his petition to possible constitutional claims are his references to double jeopardy, denial of equal protection of the law, the reckless disregard of some unspecified federal civil rights, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which appear to relate to the initial decision to classify and manage Litzinger as a sex offender. Litzinger relates the following consequences of his classification as a sex offender:
"As a result of being labeled a sex predator, petitioner has been subjected to oblique threats and ridicule by other prisoners. Former friends and associates, thinking petitioner is a sex predator, have ostracized the petitioner. As a result of being falsely and maliciously accused of being a sex offender, petitioner has suffered excruciating mental pain and anguish."
This raises the question whether the 30-day time for bringing suit commences when the discrete act of classifying Litzinger occurred, or when Litzinger experienced the collateral effects of that decision.
Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 66 L. Ed. 2d 431, 101 S. Ct. 498 (1980), provides some guidance. There, Ricks alleged that he was discharged because of race. He was denied academic tenure at the college but given a 1-year nonrenewable teaching contract for the academic year. Ricks claimed the denial of tenure was racially motivated. He argued that the time for asserting his discrimination claim began to run from the end of the academic year when he left the college, not from the date he was denied tenure. The Supreme Court ruled that the time for asserting his claim began to run with the denial of tenure, when the alleged intentional discrimination occurred, not from the date when the effects of the discrimination were felt. Similar holdings are found in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 52 L. Ed. 2d 571, 97 S. Ct. 1885 (1977), and most recently in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982, 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007).
The gravamen of Litzinger's suit is that he was wrongfully classified as a sex offender. KDOC's classification decision commenced the running of the 30-day period for Litzinger to appeal. Litzinger failed to toll the running of that 30-day period by timely pursuit of the grievance process. Thus, Litzinger's suit was untimely. Accordingly, the district court did not err in sustaining KDOC's motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
1REPORTER'S NOTE: Previously filed as an unpublished opinion, the Supreme Court granted a motion to publish pursuant to Rule 7.04 (2007 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 51). The published version was filed with the Clerk of the Appellate Courts on February 6, 2009.
END
Saturday, February 7, 2009
KS- Inmate's appeal of sex offender label is too late
Credit-reporting business is ruining America
2-7-2009 National:
The new administration might have thought the right thing to do was to “hit the ground running.” The only ground that was hit was comprised of the collective bodies of the population as they were pounded economically and emotionally downward by elitist leaders who do not live in the real world.
Someone in Washington, D.C., should stop, look and listen to the victims who are supposed to be the basis of democracy and power: We the people.
So far, the new administration has succeeded only in missing the opportunity to exact accountability from financial giants, derailing the possibility for change so ardently promised.
Change cannot begin until someone breaks the stranglehold of credit-reporting businesses on our society. They are the largest purveyors-for-pay of confidential information and the greatest risk to national security and privacy in the nation, trumping the FBI and the CIA with lack of oversight.
They make money, first by charging financial institutions to participate in data collection and sharing, then by assessing the victims (us) for reports; by negotiating the fate of the victims (us) with so-called credit counseling and bankruptcy lawyers and organizations.
They fuel their not-so-distant cousins, collection agencies, as the basis for usurious credit-card rates and provide excuses for a variety of consumer overcharges. Even the government Web site to which people in danger of foreclosure are directed contains an up-front disclaimer as to absence of HUD responsibility and liability involving the performance of another industry the reporting services helped to create, the credit counseling firms listed as “resources.”
The practices of credit-reporting bureaus should be audited and their powers limited, even outlawed. They gather and release information on everything from health care to utility payment lateness without regard to the accuracy of information or extenuating circumstances. They further profit because consumers are forced to pay fees to view and track their own information.
The process of correcting erroneous information is daunting, so much so it is often necessary to pay a lawyer or other advocate in order to rectify or expunge data.
Credit reporters have spawned an entire industry under an often-shady umbrella of debt relief. When an entity becomes so powerful people must engage the services of a third party to negotiate the terms of their credit reputation, something is radically wrong. Credit-reporting companies seldom, if ever, will negotiate directly with the client, referring them to equally uncooperative credit-card companies.
It should be criminal to base insurance rates, credit-card rates, jobs, loans, and other life-altering circumstances on the basis of one’s credit score.
The fine print on the signatory portion of an employment application should not be allowed to contain language that permits a credit-history check. The inference is if one does not pay bills on time, he or she is dishonest or more likely to steal from an employer.
Criminal-background checks might be warranted for some occupations, but a credit check only provides another opportunity for job discrimination against protected classes and an already economically compromised population.
What good will it do to create 500, 5,000 or even five million jobs for people who have been unable to pay bills, many of whom have been in foreclosure, if they can be denied employment based on their sure-to-be-negative credit reports?
Why have all bailouts been targeted to the top of the financial pyramid without demanding full audit and demonstration of good faith from lenders? They should be required to provide examples of outcomes for the mortgage victims they should have already helped with monies already “donated.”
Shouldn’t any future “help” be based on performance by the Citis and Bank of Americas of the world? What about the credit-card interest rates they have been allowed to exploit that helped drive people to the edge of economic destruction in the first place, rates upwards of 29 percent? The fines, penalties and fees involved in pre-foreclosures and credit-card assessments often exceed actual goods purchased by victims.
Why are credit companies and other institutions not required to give back some of the fruits of their usurious rates and — relieving borrowers of payments for six months or more to allow them time to take advantage of the jobs that are promised?
Banks and other lenders now can enjoy borrowing at interest rates of less than 1 percent and already have received bailout funds.
Why are they not forced to pass part of the bargain on to those trying so desperately to hold onto shelter and provide food for their families?
Surely lenders could still make a profit at a 3 percent rate, extending mortgages to a term of as many 40 years rather than the current maximum of 30.
Doesn’t it seem more economically feasible to help people with thousands in mortgage payments, just as with Section 8 housing, through the “rough spots,” rather than foreclosing and attempting to find eligible new buyers for several-hundred-thousand-dollar vacant homes?
I trust someone in our security administration is tracking how many foreign interests are purchasing distressed homes and businesses. Many of the banks have already been taken over by other countries, and our international indebtedness has been well-documented and publicized. We might not need a war to lose our country.
Just as early settlers purchased Manhattan from the Indians at bargain basement prices, depriving Indians of their land, the wholesale purchase of our real estate, our very geography by foreigners, will effectively steal America from Americans.
It will be interesting to see what kind of change the Obama administration ultimately renders: Deliverance from the ground up, or more abysmal economic, social and occupational enslavement from the top. ..News Source.. by NANCY WALTZ Times Guest Columnist
NY- Statewide Legislation Aimed to Protect Children From Sex Offenders
Lawmakers allege they are doing this to protect children, but they ignore all things dangerous, other criminal types and things physical and the crimes actually happening to children in these protected places, and want folks to ASS-U-ME that former sex offenders are the ONLY danger to children. Clearly children are a pretext for some other goal. i.e., banning folks they don't like for which there is no constitutional right to do so.
Under the guise of today's residency ordinances they try to protect places where children congregate. i.e., schools, day cares etc. No where in the entire nation has anyone, including law enforcement, been able to cite a case where a RSO lived WITHIN the prohibited distance -and- committed a crime AT the protected place. This is a hypothetical scenario that simply does not happen, and has not happened in recorded history; it is hypothetical and not reality.
This is likened to creating a law that says, we will punish the farmer if an orange falls out of a apple tree. Someone could put an orange in a apple tree and it could fall out, but is it likely to happen? Its not reality, its hypothetical.
Now Reality: Crimes are happening to children AT these protected places, caused by people working IN these protected places, how does today's residency ordinance address these crimes? They don't, today's residency laws ignore reality and only focus on hypothetical scenarios, scenarios which ignore the evidence of how crimes are happening; feel good laws, but in reality useless and resource wasteful. eAdvocate
2-7-2009 New York:
In his first visit to Long Island since being elected State Senate Majority Leader earlier this month, Senator Malcolm A. Smith met Jan. 30 with Senator Craig Johnson to announce the introduction of a major piece of statewide legislation that will protect children from predators.
The bill, S.1300, is a direct response to a recent State Supreme Court decision that invalidated Rockland County's sex offender residency law. That ruling nullified the local law asserting that under state law, the express authority to determine housing residency for sex offenders lies only with local probation offices. Using that standard some 80 local "child safety zone" laws across the state risk invalidation.
"While I have the utmost respect for the judicial branch, this particular decision is the result of a confusing patchwork of laws that we seek to simplify," Senator Smith said. "Myself and Senator Johnson are both parents, and we understand the importance of getting our laws right so that no child is placed in harm's way."
Senator Johnson, who co-sponsored Nassau County's local law while serving as a member of the county legislature, added, "We have strong laws on the books on Long Island and we have to do everything we can to ensure that these protections remain. Furthermore, by passing this on the state level we can ensure that every child, in every community across New York will have access to the very same protections."
Senator Johnson's legislation would prohibit a registered sex offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school building, park or day care center and establish the state's Penal Law mandate that the first offense of this law be a Class A misdemeanor, allowing for the presiding judge to mandate up to one year imprisonment. Subsequent offenses will be a Class D felony, allowing for up to seven years imprisonment.
"I commend Senator Johnson for this legislation and thank Senator Smith for coming today. Much like Nassau's local laws, Suffolk County's own laws were written with one goal in mind-give parents the assurance that every child is being protected. This bill is important because as we saw in Rockland County, not much stands in the way of our laws against sexual predators from being overturned," Senator Brian X. Foley (D-Blue Point).
The legislation is currently in the Senate's Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections. Discussions with potential Assembly sponsors are ongoing. ..News Source.. by Floral Park Dispatch
Megans law, The Jacob Wetterling Act, and The Adam Walsh Act
2-7-2009 National:
Each of these laws was patterned after the former and each merely tightened the former procedural requirements for registrants and making more and more of registrants' personal information public. Lawmakers claiming -each time- that the controls of the former law were insufficient and tracking of registrants was the answer to reducing sex offenses. State and local lawmakers, following each law, enacted collateral residency and proximity type laws applying them to registrants. This is the history and mentality of lawmakers, tracking, exclusion and isolation is their answer. Prevention absent from their minds!
Never have lawmakers used evidence based studies to make their decisions, sound bites and FEEL-good laws abound. Lawmakers goals under the pretext of protecting children and false claims of recidivism, accomplished nothing but did succeed in getting lawmakers votes and reelection, increasing law enforcement jobs, and making the public FEEL safer, but are they?
Billions of dollars have been spent, law enforcement -spread thin- spends the majority of their time keeping the addresses of where registrants sleep up to date, registrants are hunted down for their addresses (addresses of where they sleep) and prosecuted for technical violations of law causing a swelling prison population and associated costs skyrocketing.
Thirteen years later New Jersey decides to study whether Megan's law was effective. The result: Recidivism was not reduced; No reduction in sex offenses; The number of victims also has not been reduced; Sentences were increased and fewer paroles and Corrections costs soared.
New Jersey Concluding: Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's Law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable!
Given each law was patterned after the former, will it not be true, they too -are and will be- a failure?
Unfortunately the New Jersey study fell short of telling the whole story.
The effects on registrants and their families: Newborn children of reunited families, and newly established relationships, have been torn from the family and given to other families or put into foster care; Other children of these families are shunned by their peers throughout society and not allowed to play with children of other families; These children are growing up in fear of law enforcement with their visits and technical prosecutions of their parents, losing some parents to prisons; Many spouses have sought divorces or other living arrangements due to the constant harassment of them and their children by the community; Suicides have soared and murders of registrants, folks accused of offenses and some innocent folks; Homelessness abounds and most recently one registrant, rejected by society's social safety net, froze to death in -3 degree weather.
Megans' laws are not just a failure, they are a horrific disaster, and will effect future generations in ways we yet can conceive. Are these costs justifiable for some to FEEL safe?
eAdvocate
Friday, February 6, 2009
No quick fixes, but child-porn users can be reformed, experts say
2-6-2009 Canada:
Despite the disturbing rate of repeat offenders, experts believe that some sex offenders - child-pornography enthusiasts included - can learn to control their criminal appetites.
But it takes years rather than months, they say.
"If you do it in the right way and target the right things, you can pretty much guarantee that you can reduce the re-offence rate," says Bill Marshall, who has treated thousands of sex offenders over the past 40 years and is director of the internationally acclaimed Rockwood Psychological Services in Kingston.
Yet he also emphasizes that there's no quick fix.
"Whenever I go into court, and it's always on behalf of the Crown, the judge often says, 'How long a sentence does this man need to get effective treatment?' And I always say, 'Give him less than three years and he's not going to get effective treatment.' "
Child-porn crimes, however, rarely incur such sentences. Far more common is a provincial jail term, meaning less than two years.
Both Dr. Marshall and Peter Collins, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto who lectures widely on treating sex offenders, reject the notion that child-porn users are innately different from other pedophiles, or that their activities serve as a kind of safety valve.
And a landmark piece of research published two years ago for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, dubbed the Buttner Study, bears them out.
The survey questioned several hundred convicted child pornographers who had no criminal record for contact offences against juveniles.
In therapy and confidential surveys, a full 85 per cent of the pool admitted that they had, in fact, physically abused children.
They simply hadn't been caught.
"All the evidence that we have on these guys is they have the same kind of features and background," Dr. Marshall said.
So can child-porn users be reformed? Probably, both specialists say.
"They can be treated if they're motivated," Dr. Collins said.
"But pedophilia is a deeply ingrained erotic preference." ..News Source.. by TIMOTHY APPLEBY
CA- Federal Judge Unhappy With Flip-Flopping Fed
2-6-2009 California:
It's never a good idea to make a judge on the brink of a five-month-long death penalty trial think he's wasting his time.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Denise Barton learned that lesson this week, when Northern District of California Judge William Alsup ordered her to explain why the government decided to dismiss a sex offender registry prosecution less than two weeks after Alsup had sorted through extensive briefing on the statute's constitutionality.
In court Wednesday, Alsup kept his voice low and made sure to describe prosecutors in the office as "excellent." But the judge seemed disturbed that Barton pushed hard to detain defendant Gary Hardemann in December, only to toss the case this week.
"You went after him hammer and tongs to keep him in custody," Alsup said. The judge released Hardemann even after Barton claimed he was a danger to the community, and that more counts were coming.
"When you are charging a case, I urge you to be ready to go to trial," said Alsup, who will preside over a rare capital trial later this month.
Barton acknowledged Alsup's frustration, but said the dismissal became necessary after a newly discovered legal hurdle arose in recent weeks. Prosecutors then doubted their ability to prove the case, she said.
"We did what we believed was the responsible thing," said Barton, who coordinates the office's sex crimes prosecutions.
According to Hardemann's federal public defender, Daniel Blank, the case appears to be the first in the Northern District of California brought under the recently passed Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. Hardemann was convicted of two state law sex crimes in the 1980s, which were expunged. Still, the government contends Hardemann is required to register under SORNA, and that he failed to do so.
Blank sought to dismiss the indictment with various challenges to the statute, including a facial attack invoking the Commerce Clause. Alsup turned him down.
After that ruling, though, the government grew unsure of whether Hardemann technically moved out of San Francisco in 2007. Changing residences triggers SORNA's reporting requirements, Barton said. Since Hardemann went to Mexico for a few months -- but returned to San Francisco -- Barton said she and others in the office doubted their proof.
Still left unsettled is the fate of Alsup's constitutional analysis.
"I think that was a close call," the judge said. "I ruled in the government's favor, but I had it in the back of my mind that Mr. Blank would take it up on appeal and the 9th Circuit would sort it out."
Not surprisingly, Barton thought Alsup should let the order stand, while Blank said he should withdraw it. Alsup took the matter under submission.
"I'm concerned with having that opinion out there. Somebody may put more weight on it than it deserves," he said.
The judge closed by reminding prosecutors of their immense power over citizens that "don't have the same resources" as the government.
"Please proceed with caution and good judgment," he said. ..News Source.. by Dan Levine, The Recorder
MD- Using the Internet to nab bank robbers
2-6-2009 Maryland:
FBI site puts suspects' faces before the public
The bank robber didn't even try to conceal his identity.
He leaned across the counter of the Chevy Chase Bank in Gaithersburg and practically shoved his face into the surveillance camera, giving authorities one of the clearest pictures of a robber they had ever seen.
Newspapers published the shot, and television stations flashed it on the air.
FBI Special Agent Jeff Cisar was sure that authorities would have him quickly locked up.
But no tips came in.
And Cisar was left thinking.
"Most of these aren't going to make the front page, especially if it's a note-job bank robbery," Cisar said. "And if it runs in back of the paper, it's probably going to be thrown away and image is gone. And on TV, the image flashes on the screen and is gone. There's got to be a way to keep the photo out there."
It was October 2006, and Cisar, who works in Rockville but is assigned to the FBI's Baltimore field office, came up with his version of America's Most Wanted. He created a Web site, found private funding and puts bank surveillance pictures on the Internet - www.bankbandits.org.
The site has taken off and is being copied by law enforcement agencies across the country. Cisar said officials are working on one big bank robbery site that would combine the resources of FBI offices nationwide.
I met Cisar on Tuesday in New York, where we appeared on a panel at a crime conference sponsored by John Jay College of Criminal Justice. We spoke about how the Internet has changed crime reporting and the challenges of getting information online quickly and accurately.
With his Web site, Cisar is bypassing the restraints of the traditional media - which sorts through piles of news releases from police and chooses only a few thought to be the most newsworthy - to put all the surveillance photos into the public domain.
The site has 10 pages of wanted pictures and almost as many photos of those who have been captured. Cisar said he knows of four suspected bank robbers who have been captured because members of the public saw the pictures online.
The site has also helped fellow investigators cut through their own bureaucracy: In January, a man wearing a yellow construction helmet robbed Provident Bank on O'Donnell Street in Southeast Baltimore. The investigator immediately remembered seeing the same man in a picture on the gallery from a robbery in 2007 at another Provident Bank in Anne Arundel County, wearing the same yellow helmet.
Cisar, of course, wants to find bank robbers, and he puts up just enough information to help his cause - photos, a very brief description of the crime and numbers to call when a suspect is spotted. That is all perfectly fine. But the pictures are static - users can only plow through the gallery looking at images as they are put up.
What I'd like to see is a site that allows people to use the information any way they want. The sex offender registry wouldn't be as popular if all you could do is scan thousands of pictures and not be able to search by address and find all the offenders living on your street.
There should be the same kind of thing for banks, complete with a map, to help residents identify trends and make decisions about where to do business. But the banking industry helps fund Cisar's Web site. The banks want robbers caught, but I wonder whether they want to help pay for a map that shows robberies and lets customers see which branches get held up most.
And that's where law enforcement and the news media clash when we talk about sharing crime information, such as The Baltimore Sun'sattempts to get crime logs online. We each want to present the data in our own way, and many departments are reluctant to give up control of the numbers for someone else to manipulate.
I hope that the next generation of bankbandits .org will have more options to make it an attractive site for users and a useful tool for law enforcement. ..News Source.. by
WY- Sex offenders internet bill dies
2-6-2009 Wyoming:
CHEYENNE - A bill to restrict Internet access for convicted sex offenders died in a legislative committee Thursday.
The House Judiciary Committee voted unanimously against the bill. The committee's chairman, Rep. Keith Gingery, R-Jackson, says the bill was too flawed to go to the House floor.
Laramie County District Attorney Scott Homar says convicted sex offenders already are subject to Internet restrictions and computer searches, even if the offender's crime did not involve the Internet. ..News Source.. by BillingsGazette.com
UT- Who's responsible for 'sexting'?
2-6-2009 Utah:
Utah parents have been stunned to learn of the newest, and strangest Internet phenomenon -- "sexting" -- which is the use of a cell phone to "text" nude or sexual images to friends or acquaintances.
That's shocking, all right. But should it be a crime in all cases?
Current Utah law makes the distribution of certain kinds of sexual images a third-degree felony. The penalty applies to anybody with respect to material deemed "pornographic" or "harmful to minors."
But should that apply to juveniles in this new, bizarre fad? And if not, what should apply?
Lawmakers are trying to craft an updated law in response to parents who feel that a felony for sexting is too harsh. Rep. Sheryl Allen (R-Bountiful) introduced HB-14, which amends current law to reduce first offenses by teenagers from felonies to misdemeanors, with repeaters subject to felonies. It's something like Utah's stalking law.
But what is notably absent in HB-14 is any provision that looks beyond the age of the perpetrator to his or her intent. Not all situations are created equal.
As it stands now, Allen's bill narrowly parses penalties according to age, making them lighter for younger kids in an effort to help them get counseling through the court system. Someone younger than 16 gets a Class B misdemeanor for texting sexual material. A 16- or 17-year-old gets something tougher -- a Class A misdemeanor. Any repeat offender gets a third-degree felony.
Do such fine nuances based on narrow age differences really make sense? Is there a meaningful difference between a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old? Probably not.
Or a broader question: Should sexting by a juvenile ever reach criminal court at all? It may be argued that the offense generally doesn't rise to criminality, and that civil remedies with monetary damages attached should be sufficient to quell the problem.
Parents should be involved. What better way to accomplish that than by aiming at their bank accounts?
Make no mistake: sexting is a disturbing trend across the nation, and Utah is not immune. Last year, the Davis County attorney investigated 28 teenagers from five junior high schools and three high schools.
It's true that a teen who snaps a nude photo of another teen (a boyfriend or girlfriend, for example) and then shares it with others has seriously invaded the subject's privacy. But that's just one level of analysis. Contrast it with the many cases nationally of teens who willingly send nude pictures of themselves to willing recipients. There may be mutual exchanges of images -- even one-upmanship on the crude photo scale.
The difference lies not in the age of the perpetrator but upon his or her intent, both in sending and in receiving or possessing. It's wrong, but juveniles cannot be expected to get it the first time around, and maybe not even the second or third.
This is the weakness of HB-14 with respect to juveniles. It doesn't differentiate any levels of dastardliness in deeds themselves, nor does it include any adjustment for intent. It merely punishes according to age, which is arguably a poor standard.
Whereas with adults it's reasonable to punish the transmission or possession of sexual images involving children in a blanket fashion (adults know better), other nuances ought to be considered in the case of teens communicating with their peers.
We venture to say that most teens who exhibit unbelievably poor judgment ("I'll show you mine if you show me yours") with respect to photo messaging are not sexual predators. Much of this seems more akin to sexual harassment in the workplace. But sexual harassment isn't even defined in Utah statutes. It's typically addressed as a civil matter.
Some other parallels with respect to youth include underage smoking, drinking and most driving offenses. These are typically misdemeanors, and they're arguably as harmful as lewd pictures.
Moreover, there's something inconsistent in assigning criminal punishment -- even a felony -- for pictures, but little more than a finger-wag for juveniles who have real sex. Sure, it's against the law, but it's virtually never prosecuted.
But if juveniles are not charged with felonies on second offenses for smoking or drinking -- or even for having sexual relations with each other -- it seems hard to justify a felony for a repeated exchange of pictures.
A case can be made that the criminal justice system should not be engaged when other solutions are available. Steps might be taken, for example, to encourage more active participation by the proper stewards -- parents. It wouldn't hurt to hold their feet to the fire.
As one expert noted, parents can take steps such as manually checking their kids' cell phones from time to time. If kids don't like it, they can give up the phones. Cell phone providers could improve their services to include a duplicate message to parents of text or photo messaging -- for a fee, of course.
One way or another, parents should be on the hook. After all, when parents give a child a cell phone, don't they implicitly give the child permission to access everything the phone can deliver? If they then fail to monitor their kids' activities, should they not be found negligent? ..News Source.. by Daily Herald
Thursday, February 5, 2009
GA- Parents: Cobb Middle Schooler Received Rape Threat On Computer
I guess the state residency law missed this stalker "sex offender" because s/he is IN THE SCHOOL not in the prohibited distance OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL. Well, I'm sure the legislature will jump in with some kind of law to protect kids on SCHOOL COMPUTERS, wonder what it will be?
2-5-2009 Georgia:
COBB COUNTY, Ga. -- Parents of a middle school student who received a rape threat on her school computer are calling on school officials to find out who sent the message.
The 13-year-old girl attends Tapp Middle School in Powder Springs. The girl’s parents said she was terrified by the message and they worry about their child’s safety.
“I know my child and she is shaken up. She was definitely shaken up by it,” said mother ____.
_________ said their 13-year-old daughter came home Friday from school with a disturbing story. Their daughter said when she opened a school laptop in her science class to work on a project, she found a threatening message.
“It said, ‘Hello, this is your stalker. I will rape you a month after you read this,’” said _____.
The parents believe the profanity-laced message in bold type was written by another student who accessed their daughter’s file after she failed to properly log off.
“For my daughter, obviously her safety is number one. And just knowing this happened by a student she is sitting with in a classroom every day,” said _______.
“If something was to happen to her and I knew this letter was out there and something was to happen to her, how could I live with myself,” asked ____.
The parents said they’re upset because the school did not immediately notify them when their daughter showed the threatening message to her teacher.
The ____s filed a police report and the school has opened an investigation, but the parents don’t believe school officials are taking the matter as seriously as they should.
“I’m very upset about it. And the lack of urgency by the school system, to get to the bottom of this matter is really upsetting,” said ____.
“Bottom line, she didn’t know who did it. She couldn’t think of anyone who would want to do that to her,” said _____.
The ____s said they are going to request their daughter be removed from the science class. ____ said she has a meeting with the principal Friday morning.
Channel 2 placed calls into the principal’s office and the Cobb County School System but the station has not yet received a response. ..News Source.. by WSBTV 2
Sexually Assaulted on Facebook
2-5-2009 National:
A judge in Waukesha County, Wis., told the suspect standing before her that she had never seen a complaint as "horrific" as the one filed against him.
As the District Attorney's Office outlined the charges against the New Berlin Eisenhower High School student, Anthony Stancl, 18, stood silently, wearing an orange jail jumpsuit and chains.
He is charged with 12 felonies after he allegedly posed as a girl online to trick male classmates into sending him nude pictures of themselves.
According to a criminal complaint, he then allegedly blackmailed some of them into committing sexual acts.
Stancl is charged with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second degree sexual assault, two counts of third degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, the repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat.
"Mr. Stancl used the Internet to first communicate with people on Facebook, pretending to be a female," said Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel. "After some conversations with these individuals, he would eventually coax them into providing him with nude photographs of themselves in exchange for what they thought was nude photographs of the girl they were talking with.
"It wasn't a girl, it was Anthony Stancl."
He allegedly exchanged pictures with at least 31 teenage boys, and Stancl then tried to blackmail or extort half of them into meeting him for sex acts.
"They were coerced into acts they didn't wish to be involved in," Schlimel said. "Stancl told them that if they didn't, he would show the pictures to all of their friends.
"All told, there were approximately 300 photographs of known New Berlin high school students.
There were over 600 other movies that were commercially produced -- child pornography videos --that had been downloaded off the Internet."
Stancl has no prior criminal record, and investigators believe he was working alone.
His alleged victims range in age from 13 to 19, and it's believed that additional victims have not yet come forward.
They are encouraged to contact the New Berlin Police Department. ..News Source.. by NBCChicago.com
CA- Cost Cuts Could Send Sex Offenders Underground
2-5-2009 California:
SACRAMENTO, CA - Paroled sex offenders say new cuts to housing assistance will likely force more of them into the streets at greater risk to public safety.
Next week, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDRC) announces new policies, including a stricter 60-day limit on paying rent for parolees newly released from prison. The agency says in the past 12 months, the state has paid out almost $20 million in housing assistance for 7,897 parolees. Almost 5,000 of those parolees are convicted sex offenders.
"A lot of the guys are of the mentality that I'm not gonna do this, ya know, and they're gonna just cut the (GPS) monitors off and go. I mean, I hear guys talking about it every day," said a 57-year-old sex offender parolee named Russ. He was just booted from his room at a downtown Sacramento hotel because his parole agent said the state won't pay his $485 rent anymore.
Russ isn't sure what his next move will be, but he said many he knows could likely turn to their old ways without a place to live.
"You've got already desperate men with maybe drug and alcohol problems that are going to be made more desperate," he said. "They're gonna be on the streets, they're gonna be drinking, gonna be doing drugs and they're gonna be a danger to the public."
"Everything I kind of worked for is pretty much going down the drain for me because without a roof over my head, I don't really have no fallback," another sex offender on parole told News10.
His name is William, he's 24, and a registered sex offender released in December after serving time for grand theft. He's been told his $490 rent check will end next month. He has a job at a fast food restaurant and is trying to get into college classes but says having the state pay his rent has been his only hope.
"They told me as long as I have a GPS monitor, I would be able to have parole pay my rent. It's helping me survive to get my feet up on land so I can become something of myself," William said.
What will he do now?
"I don't know. I'm pretty scared about that now, actually," he said. As for others in the same situation, William echoed Russ' comments.
"It's gonna mean that there's gonna be more people out on the streets that are 290s (the penal code for registered sex offenders). It's gonna mean that people have to worry more about what kind of people are out in the streets," he said.
"The fact we're trying to push them out into the street is not a fair statement," responded Gordon J. Hinkle, spokesman for CDCR. "They're not being cut off cold coming out the institution, we're not just going to give them a bus ticket to nowhere. For the average parolee, I think 60 days is an adequate time for them to get assistance to help provide a stable environment."
Hinkle said the department is simply cracking down on spending while directing dollars toward job training and other programs to help parolees get back on their feet.
"Our focus is now going to be on allowing them to become more self sufficient and try to give a leg up instead of a handout, especially when at taxpayers' expense, we can't afford to subsidize long-term housing assistance," said Hinkle. He said the $20 million spent in the past 12 months on parolee housing was in large part because of problems under Jessica's Law in placing paroled sex offenders, who cannot be within 2,000 feet of schools or playgrounds.
"We just can't continue at that rate," Hinkle said.
He also downplayed any idea the cuts in paying parolee housing costs will mean any higher risk to citizens around the state.
"We're definitely going to be doing our regular supervision and monitoring of parolees, so I'm not seeing a real public threat," he said.
But Russ says anything that increases the desperation of convicted sex offenders can create more risk.
"The folks that voted overwhelmingly for Jessica's Law were not voting for something that was going to turn 290s out into the streets, homeless. That's not because they're concerned about our living conditions but because they're concerned about their own safety. And let's face it, with some of us, they've gotta be concerned," Russ said. ..News Source.. by Mark Hedlund
TX- AG’s office arrests local sex offender
2-5-2009 Texas:
SEGUIN — Authorities say that accessing MySpace landed a local convicted sex offender back behind bars.
Seguin resident ____, 33, was arrested by the Texas Attorney General’s Fugitive Unit on Jan. 27 for allegedly accessing the Internet — a violation of the terms of his parole.
____ was paroled in 2008 after serving five years in prison for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old Bexar County girl.
He is being held without bond at the Guadalupe County Jail.
“Last week’s arrest reflects the Fugitive Unit’s ongoing effort to crack down on convicted sex offenders who illegally access social networking sites,” Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a press release. “Despite his release conditions, the subject in this case repeatedly used his personal computer and cellular telephone to access a MySpace.com profile.
“The case demonstrates that parents and law enforcement must work cooperatively to educate young users about the potentially dangerous individuals hiding behind a seemingly benign online profile.”
_____’s profile included his real age, name and photo.
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman at the Attorney General’s Office, said the investigation is ongoing and he could not comment on whether _____ had used his MySpace profile as a way to target or locate minors, but said Internet use itself was a violation of _____’s probation.
Strickland added that it is important for parents to follow some precautions to keep their children safe from convicted sex offenders and other dangerous people online.
He suggested that parents communicate with their children about online activities to be aware of the kinds of sites and interactions a child may encounter.
“It’s important also to access and have passwords to MySpace and other sites your child uses, really as a way to keep track of children and their online activities,” he said. “This is something parents need to do because child predators really go to great lengths to target children online.”
He said another way for parents to monitor children’s online activities is to keep the computer in a public area of the house — a move that also encourages children to keep away from sites parents wouldn’t approve of.
“Parents have the opportunity to oversee what sites their children go to and what they are viewing,” he said.
Abbott said that the dangers of online use cannot be emphasized enough.
He said a recent report found that there are over 90,000 registered sex offenders on MySpace.
“Just because someone is a registered sex offender does not mean that it is illegal for them to use MySpace,” he explained during a Wednesday press conference. “It depends upon the terms of their parole.”
Abbott added that Scott’s arrest came just weeks after a technology industry task force released a report that downplayed the dangers facing children online.
The report and task force stem from a “Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking” agreement that 49 state attorneys general negotiated with social networking giant MySpace.com.
Citing inadequate safeguards for children and concerns that the agreement would give parents a false sense of security, Abbot declined to join the agreement.--Note: Given Abbot didn't participate where is his proof that the report is invalid as he claims? Abbot's basis seems to be nothing more than, there are RSOs on the Internet and a few of them -who are on parole- violated their parole by being on the Internet, not that they actually victimized any minor. Those facts -if true- do not invalidate that report, in fact a reasonable mind would conclude, Abbots's basis confirms the report because Abbot does not say minors were victimized.
“Since our Cyber Crimes Unit first began its online predator crackdown, we have arrested more than 100 sexual predators for using the Internet to prey upon children,” Abbot said in a press release. “Although these arrests plainly illustrate the dangers that children face online, this report minimizes the dangers posed by online sexual predators. The report’s conclusions are not only erroneous, but worse, give a false sense of relief to parents who should be increasingly concerned about their children’s online activities.” --Note: Arrested in the begining of the article referred to parole violations, not crimes, again here he doesn't say whether this -over 100- were convicted of crimes or parole violations. His "to prey on children" seems to be no more than his belief that being on the Internet automatically means they are preying on children. Remember, he fails to use the term CONVICTED which would indicate a child was vicitimized.
..News Source.. by Jessica Sanders
Perpetuating the Myth of Sexual Predators and Social Networking
2-5-2009 National:
A couple of state attorneys general are "appalled" that 90,000 registered sex offenders had MySpace pages before MySpace booted them off the site. Never mind that a task force created by the state attorneys general recently concluded that the online sexual solicitation of children isn't a significant problem (sensationalized television shows like "To Catch a Predator" notwithstanding).
The task force, led by the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, looked at scientific data on online sexual predators and found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be propositioned by adults online.
Among those who disagreed with this reality because it contradicted his practice of fear-mongering was Connecticut's AG Richard Blumenthal, who complained that the report "downplayed the predator threat." Blumenthal failed to appreciate the difference between "downplaying" a threat and recognizing that the threat isn't significant. [more ...]
Read the rest of this post over at TalkLeft, don't miss the last sentence.
WA- Is sending racy 'sexts' flirting, or is it porn?
2-5-2009 Washington:
Though youth is fleeting, images sent on a cell phone or posted online may not be, especially if they're naughty.
Teenagers' habit of distributing nude self-portraits electronically -- often called "sexting" if it's done by cell phone -- has parents and school administrators worried. Nationally, some prosecutors have begun charging teens who send and receive such images with child pornography and other serious felonies.
But is that the best way to handle it?
In some cases, the photos are sent to harass other teens or to get attention. Other times, they're viewed as a high-tech way to flirt. Either way, law enforcement officials want it to stop, even if it means threatening to add "sex offender" to a juvenile's confidential record.
With an estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of secondary school kids carrying cell phones, sexting -- as well as cyberbullying -- has exploded, said Mike Donlin, who helped implement a new cyberbullying curriculum in Seattle Public Schools.
And it can have ongoing consequences for the victim, he said: "You're going to be humiliated hundreds of thousands of times. It's totally devastating."
Two Bothell High School cheerleaders discovered that late last summer, after nude photos they'd taken of themselves began circulating among the student body via text message, without their consent.
In addition to the personal embarrassment, the girls were suspended from the cheerleading squad after school officials received copies of the photos from an unnamed source.
Their parents sued the Northshore School District, alleging among other charges that administrators had needlessly shared the photos with other school staff members and failed to promptly report the matter to police as possible child pornography.
The district has denied the allegations, and last month filed counterclaims against the families for filing "a frivolous lawsuit over a matter which would have died down and disappeared" if the girls had accepted the consequences of their actions, according to court documents.
The two lawsuits recently were moved from King County Superior Court to U.S. District Court, and the judge has ordered the two sides to try mediation. Court trials wouldn't occur until March 2010 at the earliest.
In Seattle Public Schools, school officials are encouraged to call parents or contact police if they learn of such activity, but situations are handled on a case-by-case basis.
"If something's disrupting the educational environment, whether it's disrupting it for one person or for the whole school ... we have the obligation to intervene," Donlin said.
The fact that child pornography charges have been filed in some other cases nationwide is stirring debate.
This month at Greensburg-Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., three high school girls who sent seminude photos and four male students who received them were all hit with child pornography charges.
Junior Jamie Bennish said she's not sure the boys in her school's case should've been charged.
"They did not necessarily choose to receive the pictures" she said. "As for the girls ... any charges they receive they have brought upon themselves."
But Dante Bertani, chief public defender in Westmoreland County, Pa., where the students went to court, called the felony charges "horrendous."
"It should be an issue between the school, the parents and the kids -- and primarily the parents and the kids," Bertani said. "It's not something that should be going through the criminal system."
Parents are also often at a loss.
Some companies, such as WebSafety Inc., have developed software that parents can use to monitor certain activity on cell phones and computers. They can, for instance, detect X-rated texting terms, said Mike Adler, the company's chief executive.
Photos are trickier, though, and often require a parent to manually check a child's phone.
And that's OK to do, said Dr. Terri Randall, an adolescent psychiatrist in Philadelphia.
"It could be part of the contract of having a cell phone, that you really don't get 100 percent privacy," Randall said. Other patients tell Randall how sexting and texting explicit messages caused relationship problems, especially after a breakup, when photos might be distributed out of spite.
So she reminds her young patients: "That person may not always feel the same way about you. And you may not feel the same way about that person either."
But is it porn? That's questionable, she and others say.
Certainly, technology makes it easier to do and say things we might not do in person, said Amanda Lenhart, a senior researcher with the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
"But ultimately," she said, "I think this is merely another case of technology extending an activity or action that young people have engaged in for years, if not beyond that."
..News Source.. by P-I STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES
ICE raids mostly nab non-criminals, files show
2-5-2009 National:
Program was supposed to target dangerous fugitives
An Immigration and Customs Enforcement program designed to target the most dangerous immigration fugitives has swept up mostly non-criminals in recent years, newly released documents show.
The National Fugitive Operations Program, created in 2003 with the mission of locating and deporting fugitives who are national security or public safety threats, resulted in the arrests of more than 62,000 people through the end of the 2007 fiscal year.
Of those arrests, roughly 18 percent involved fugitive immigrants with criminal records, according to a report released Wednesday by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington D.C., which obtained the data from ICE. Roughly 48 percent of the arrests involved immigrants with outstanding deportation orders and no criminal record. The remaining 34 percent were simply identified during a raid and arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the report said.
ICE officials have said the fugitive operations program gives top priority to cases involving violent fugitives, including gang members and child sex offenders. A series of internal directives, however, shows the agency steeply increased an annual arrest quota for the fugitive teams in 2006, while relaxing a requirement that 75 percent of targets have criminal records.
The result, critics say, is that ICE shifted focus and went after “low-hanging fruit,” people who were easy to arrest, instead of the most violent offenders.
“In spite of the fact that the program supposedly prioritized its targets based on their dangerousness, the program primarily arrested the easiest targets,” said Margot Mendelson, co-author of the MPI report.
According to the report, the percentage of arrests involving fugitive immigrants with criminal records declined from 23 percent in 2003 to 9 percent in 2007.--In other words, they needed marketing material -numbers- to prove their worth, so they focused on the low priority cases. So the hype we have heard claiming the most dangerous folks were arrested, is not true, well I guess I shouldn't expect the truth when its budget time. -OR- there were relatively few most dangerous to find? Hummmm...
ICE spokesman Greg Palmore said ICE has significantly increased arrests of criminal fugitives in recent months. So far this fiscal year, beginning Oct. 1, ICE’s Fugitive Operations Program recorded 12,114 arrests nationally, although he was unable to provide a specific number of arrests for fugitive immigrants with criminal records.
Arrest record in Houston
The national findings in the MPI report mirror local trends.
Of the 1,587 arrests made by Houston’s fugitive operations teams in the 2008 fiscal year, 17 percent were for people with criminal convictions, said ICE officials.
Palmore defended the agency’s arrests of non-criminals swept up by the fugitive teams.
“While ICE prioritizes our efforts by targeting fugitives who have demonstrated a threat to national security or public safety, we have a clear mandate to pursue all immigration fugitives — even those with no documented criminal history in the United States,” Palmore said.
The program is one of ICE’s fastest-growing initiatives, said Doris Meissner, a senior fellow with MPI and a former Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner.
Over the past five years, program funding has totaled more than $625 million.
The memos detailing ICE’s internal quotas and field directives were obtained in January by an instructor and students at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Peter L. Markowitz, director of Cardozo’s Immigration Justice Clinic, said the agency’s memos provide context for the decline in arrests of fugitive immigrants with criminal records. An ICE memo from early 2004 required no less than 75 percent of fugitive operations targets be classified as “criminal aliens.”
Peter L. Markowitz, director of Cardozo’s Immigration Justice Clinic, said the agency’s memos provide context for the decline in arrests of fugitive immigrants with criminal records. An ICE memo from early 2004 required no less than 75 percent of fugitive operations targets be classified as “criminal aliens.”
That requirement was removed in 2006, while the fugitive operation teams’ annual quotas were increased to 1,000 arrests per year, up from 125. For the first time, the teams were allowed to count any arrest — not just those of fugitives and criminals — toward their totals.
The change allowed ICE to report a record number of “fugitive arrests” — more than 15,000 in fiscal year 2006, up from nearly 8,000 the previous year. The number for 2007 looked even more impressive, with 30,407 arrests, although MPI’s data showed that only 9 percent involved fugitive immigrants with criminal records.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently issued a directive that puts the removal of immigrants convicted of crimes at the top of the agency’s priority list. ..News Source.. by SUSAN CARROLL
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Teens who `sext' racy photos charged with porn
2-4-2009 National:
CHICAGO (AP) — Though youth is fleeting, images sent on a cell phone or posted online may not be, especially if they're naughty.
Teenagers' habit of distributing nude self-portraits electronically — often called "sexting" if it's done by cell phone — has parents and school administrators worried. Some prosecutors have begun charging teens who send and receive such images with child pornography and other serious felonies. But is that the best way to handle it?
"Hopefully we'll get the message out to these kids," says Michael McAlexander, a prosecutor in Allen County, Ind., which includes Fort Wayne. A teenage boy there is facing felony obscenity charges for allegedly sending a photo of his private parts to several female classmates. Another boy was recently charged with child pornography in a similar case.
In some cases, the photos are sent to harass other teens or to get attention. Other times, they're viewed as a high-tech way to flirt. Either way, law enforcement officials want it to stop, even if it means threatening to add "sex offender" to a juvenile's confidential record.
"We don't want to throw these kids in jail," McAlexander says. "But we want them to think."
This month in Greensburg, Pa., three high school girls who sent seminude photos and four male students who received them were all hit with child pornography charges. And in Newark, Ohio, a 15-year-old high school girl faced similar charges for sending her own racy cell phone photos to classmates. She eventually agreed to a curfew, no cell phone and no unsupervised Internet usage over the next few months. If she complies, the charges will be dropped.
In Pennsylvania, all but one of the students accepted a lesser misdemeanor charge, partly to avoid a trial and further embarrassment, a public defender in the case said. The mother of one boy is considering fighting all charges.
Whatever the outcome, the mere fact that child pornography charges were filed at all is stirring debate among students and adults.
At Greensburg-Salem High School in Pennsylvania, junior Jamie Bennish says she's not sure the boys in her school's case should've been charged.
"They did not necessarily choose to receive the pictures, although I find it questionable that they did not delete the photos from their cell phones after some period of time," she says. "As for the girls, there is no excuse for exposing yourself in that way, and any charges they receive they have brought upon themselves."
Dante Vertani, chief public defender in Westmoreland County, Pa., where the students went to court, called the felony charges "horrendous." He says such treatment should be reserved for sex offenders, not teenagers who might've used poor judgment, but meant nothing malicious.
"It should be an issue between the school, the parents and the kids — and primarily the parents and the kids," Vertani says. "It's not something that should be going through the criminal system."
These cases do pose a dilemma, concedes Wes Weaver, the principal at Licking Valley High School, where the Ohio girl attends school.
He agrees that pornography charges or other felonies are not appropriate, noting that "the laws have not caught up to technology."
But he says there has to be some way to educate students and their parents about the harm these photos can do — and the fact that, once they're out there, they often get widely circulated. Days before his staff discovered the girl's nude photos, the county prosecutor had been at the school to warn students against sexting.
"I don't think we're anywhere near having a handle on this," Weaver says. "It's beyond our scope as a school."
Parents are also often at a loss.
Some companies, such as WebSafety Inc., have developed software that parents can use to monitor certain activity on cell phones and computers. They can, for instance, block X-rated texting terms or be alerted when their child is using them, says Mike Adler, the company's CEO.
Photos are trickier, though, and often require a parent to manually check a child's phone.
And that's OK to do, says Dr. Terri Randall, an adolescent psychiatrist in Philadelphia.
"It could be part of the contract of having a cell phone, that you really don't get 100 percent privacy. It's just one more way of keeping track, like knowing what your kid is doing and where they are," says Randall, who's also an instructor at Jefferson Medical College.
Randall says she's seeing more issues related to sexting, especially as cell phones with cameras have become standard. One mother brought her daughter in to be psychologically evaluated after finding provocative cell phone photos of the girl.
Other patients tell Randall how sexting and texting explicit messages has caused relationship problems, especially after a breakup, when photos might be distributed out of spite, for instance.
So she reminds her young patients: "Even though it seems like fun and so exciting right now, that person may not always feel the same way about you. And you may not feel the same way about that person either."
But is it porn? That's questionable, she and others say.
Certainly, technology makes it easier to do and say things we might not do in person, says Amanda Lenhart, a senior researcher with the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
"But ultimately," she says, "I think this is merely another case of technology extending an activity or action that young people have engaged in for years, if not beyond that." ..News Source.. by AP
WI- Sex offenders will face residency rules
Hysteria, Vigilantism and Extortion to force those in office to reverse their prior votes? How many others who originally voted against this were also targeted?
2-4-2009 Wisconsin:
Greenfield reverses earlier decision on restrictions
Just eight days after rejecting an identical proposal, the Greenfield Common Council has unanimously approved new restrictions about where sex offenders can live.
The new ordinance, which mirrors rules adopted in many neighboring communities, states that sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of areas where children may be present, such as a school or park. Sex offenders currently living in the city can stay, but no more will be allowed to move into such areas.
Several factors were attributed to the council’s Jan. 28 decision to reverse a Jan. 20 vote on that issue.
Vocal input given
Some aldermen previously voted against adopting residency restrictions because they said they had heard few complaints about sex offenders and questioned whether the ordinance would be effective.
Melissa Roberts, director of the sex offender program for the state Department of Corrections, and resident Bill Stevens told the council Jan. 20 the data does not prove that residency restriction ordinances are a deterrent.
But, after the Jan. 20 vote, many ordinance supporters had flooded city officials with calls and e-mails.
In rapidly and decisively reversing a 3-2 vote, aldermen last week pointed to the varying responses to that decision, among other factors.
It was aldermen Tom Pietrowski, Shirley Saryan and Donald Almquist who changed their previous positions, joining Linda Lubotsky and Karl Kastner in a 5-0 vote to support the measure Jan. 28.
Pietrowski, who had earlier voiced concerns about how such an ordinance would be enforced, said he changed his mind largely after hearing from the Police Department and city attorney on that issue.
Almquist had said he did not want to punish some offenders, such as an 18-year-old who had sex with a 17-year-old. But he discovered that in such a case, the 18-year-old would not enter the state’s sex offender registry program and thus would not be affected by the ordinance.
Worst fears realized
Evidence that some registered sex offenders were now eyeing Greenfield as a place to live also prompted the city’s decision to quickly reconsider the issue.
Mayor Michael Neitzke, who called the special meeting at the request of Almquist, said he did not want to put off a decision until the council’s regular meeting Feb. 5 because of the issue’s urgency.
Officials noted that two sex offenders had moved into Greenfield since the initial Jan. 20 decision. To supporters of the restrictions, this backed up the oft-stated argument that Greenfield would become a “dumping ground” for sex offenders.
“In the 10 years or so I’ve been around (as alderman and mayor), I’ve never had an issue that’s energized the entire city like this has,” said Neitzke, who supported the measure but did not have a vote. (The mayor votes only to break a tie in aldermanic votes.)
Ordinance supporters had originally planned a Jan. 29 gathering to protest the council’s earlier decision, but instead focused on the concern about new sex offenders now living in the community, said Lubotsky, the sponsor of the ordinance.
Political element?
Another factor in the council’s reversal could be tied to the upcoming election.
The issue came to a vote a little more than two months before the April 7 general election and less than a month before the Feb. 17 mayoral primary. Saryan and Almquist are running for re-election and Pietrowski is running for mayor.
Some of the political environment had become overheated.
Since casting his “no” vote Jan. 20, Pietrowski said he has received calls from people threatening to damage his property if he did not remove campaign signs.
“I find that atrocious when we as a city take that much venom and spew it in that fashion,” he said.
Important date
Though it was approved Jan. 28, the ordinance goes into effect tomorrow, Feb. 6, the day after it is published in the Greenfield-West Allis NOW.
In addition to residency restrictions, the council has approved another similar ordinance that involves sex offenders. That measure, approved on a 4-1 vote Jan. 20 and in effect since Jan. 30, says sex offenders cannot “loiter” within 1,000 feet of common children’s areas. ..News Source.. by MARK SCHAAF
NY- Sex offender arrested at Riverside trailer
OK, here we have a homeless sex offender. Question: How do homeless persons remember what today is, what time it is, or other similar facts? If you were homeless where would you go to urinate or do the other? A reader raised these questions with respect to Thomas Pauli who froze to death in Michigan, here again those questions are relevant. Has the sex offender been unfairly targeted and will he be convicted of what is mentioned?
2-4-2009 New York:
A convicted sex offender staying at the trailer located on the grounds of the Suffolk County Jail in Riverside was arrested by Southampton Town Police last week for failing to register his home address with authorities.
____, 47, of Riverhead was arrested by Town Police at 10:04 p.m. last Thursday, January 29, and charged with failure to register as a sex offender, a felony, according to police. Mr. ___, who is a level three sex offender, was arrested at the trailer, which serves as a temporary shelter for homeless sex offenders. The Riverside trailer is one of two such facilities operated by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services. The second is located in Westhampton.
Southampton Town Police officer Lois Smith, who monitors all registered sex offenders in the municipality, explained that Mr. ___’s registration had lapsed.
“We keep records, we review records, we’re familiar with what everyone is doing and when they’re doing it,” she said. “When someone doesn’t register, we know it.”
Mr. ____ was arraigned Friday at Southampton Town Justice Court. His bail information was not immediately available.
The New York State Office of Sex Offender Management website notes that Mr. ___ was arrested on August 22, 2002, and charged with third-degree attempted sodomy, a misdemeanor. He was later sentenced to nine months in prison. The age and sex of Mr. ___’s victim were not listed on the website.
--Note: What does his past have to do with today's circumstances, what happened today? Nothing, it is raised to taint the offender and to cause the public to be prejudiced against the registrant.
Mr. ____ was also arrested October 20 by Riverhead Town Police after he was observed urinating outside police headquarters on Howell Avenue, according to authorities. ..News Source.. by Jessica DiNapoli
Student cell phone confiscation and searches
2-4-2009 National:
According to this article, one Texas school district is now allowing for the confiscation of cell phones from students who display or use them at school, and is considering levying a retrieval fee. I had mentioned in a comment to a previous post by Justin that other districts are definitely requiring a fee of either $15 or $25 for a confiscated cell phone to be returned to a parent of the offending student. I personally am in support of such a policy, as it affects one’s pocketbook and inconveniences the parent who has to come to school to deal with the matter. Another article from Wyoming details a new policy (which still requires final approval but is on its way) allowing a student’s cell phone to be searched.
The search can occur if the phone is “suspected to have materials that pose a threat to the welfare of the school population.” Maybe this language is intentionally broad. Or, maybe the language is sufficiently narrow because such a “threat” might conjure up similar conceptions in the minds of reasonable persons. What do you think? Who will be able to articulate such a suspicion? Teachers? Administrators? Student peers? Bus drivers? Cafeteria workers?
Will this lead to 4th Amendment violations of students, or is this definitely the way to go nowadays in order to prevent harm, victimization, and criminal activity among youth?
Seemingly, materials on a cell phone that might pose a threat to the welfare of the school population could include evidence of textual harassment of a teacher or another student; inappropriate pictures or videos involving nudity, drugs, weapons, or other contraband; or even web history files that indicate the student was visiting a bomb-making or anti-establishment web site. Can you think of any other possibilities? Could this policy be abused and lead to more headaches for the district? ..Source.. by CyberBullying.us
CO- Council passes living restrictions for sex offenders
I'll start here: They allege they are doing this to protect children, but they ignore all things dangerous, other criminal types and things physical and the crimes actually happening to children in these protected places, and want folks to ASS-U-ME that former sex offenders are the ONLY danger to children. Clearly children are a pretext for some other goal. i.e., banning folks they don't like for which there is no constitutional right to do so.
Under the guise of today's residency ordinances they try to protect places where children congregate. i.e., schools, day cares etc. No where in the entire nation has anyone, including law enforcement, been able to cite a case where a RSO lived WITHIN the prohibited distance -and- committed a crime AT the protected place. This is a hypothetical scenario that simply does not happen, and has not happened in recorded history; it is hypothetical and not reality.
This is likened to creating a law that says, we will punish the farmer if an orange falls out of a apple tree. Someone could put an orange in a apple tree and it could fall out, but is it likely to happen? Its not reality, its hypothetical.
Now Reality: Crimes are happening to children AT these protected places, caused by people working IN these protected places, how does today's residency ordinance address these crimes? They don't, today's residency laws ignore reality and only focus on hypothetical scenarios, scenarios which never happen; feel good laws, but in reality useless and resource wasteful. eAdvocate
2-4-2009 Colorado:
Greeley City Council has decided to stop sex offenders from living and loitering near schools, parks and playgrounds.
The ordinance, adopted by the Greeley City Council on Tuesday night, is designed to stop sex offenders from living closer than 750 feet from places where children congregate and also includes public pools and recreation centers. The sex offenders who must stay away from schools include those convicted of a felony and those who have multiple convictions.
Because of fears about civil liberties, Greeley officials crafted the ordinance with the 750 foot figure in mind to allow sex offenders to live in some places in Greeley. About one city block equates to 750 feet.
The loitering ordinance passed unanimously 6-0 — Councilman Ed Phillipsen was absent — but the residency restrictions passed 4-2 with Councilman Charles Archibeque and Councilwoman Pam Shaddock voting against it because of concerns — which they said they’ve seen in studies — that sex offender residency restrictions don’t work.
Sex offenders who already live near schools or parks and other places they are now prohibited from being will be able to stay in their homes provided they don’t move and don’t reoffend.
“We’re not pushing anyone out,” said Greeley Mayor Ed Clark. “It grandfathers — unfortunately — grandfathers all those people (who already live near schools) in.”
Three other communities in Colorado already limit where sex offenders can live and loiter — Englewood, Commerce City and Greenwood Village. Colorado has no statewide law directing where sex offenders can live.
Greeley has 242 sex offenders, said Greeley police officer Terry Moore with the Greeley Sex Offender Unit. About 80 percent or more are native to Greeley, Moore said.
Moore told council on Tuesday night that that figure has grown from 108 in March 2002, but that only about 10 of Greeley’s sex offenders have reoffended in seven years he’s been doing his job.
“We’re pretty even with most of the other cities around the state with how many sex offenders we have,” Moore said. Moreover, 85-93 percent of victims know their attackers.
The ordinances, however, will make Greeley a less attractive place for sex offenders to live, Moore said.
Taylor Pendergrass, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Colorado, sent a letter to Greeley City Council on Monday urging the council to reject the ordinances, which it didn’t.
Pendergrass said the loitering ordinance is too vague and that the residency law would actually do more harm than good in giving residents a false sense of security.
“The two ordinances being considered by Greeley City Council may be intended to address the fears of the public, but when it comes to actually stopping sex assaults, these measures are likely to do more harm than good,” Pendergrass wrote. ..News Source.. by Andrew Villegas
