We Will Remember You!
May 31, 2010
ACTION ALERT: AWA Supplemental Guidelines - What is critically important to comment about?
UPDATES: None..5-30-2010 National:
What is different between these NEW Supplemental Guidelines(SG) and the Final Guidelines(FG) which were posted a few years ago? The FG published years ago addressed the entire Adam Walsh Act, including the registration portion [SORNA -- Title I in AWA], while the NEW SG address only portions of SORNA.Some folks have not understood how the Adam Walsh Act is constructed, so think of it like this: It is a book titled the Adam Walsh Act, and in that book are different chapters, one being SORNA (Chapter 1 = TITLE I—SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT).
The intent of the NEW SG is to amend -not replace- portions of the FINAL Guidelines issued years ago. Accordingly, it is critically important that all comments ONLY address issues raised by the NEW Supplemental Guidelines.
PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS CHANCE TO COMMENT TO EXPRESS YOUR GENERAL DISCONTENT WITH THE OVERALL Adam Walsh Act. General comments about the harmfulness of the Adam Walsh Act, will fall on deaf ears and be ignored, as not relevant to the NEW SG.When a government agency, such as the Dep't of Justice and/or the SMART Office post something asking for public comments, then they expect folks to comment ONLY about what they post (Supplemental Guidelines this time). Unfortunately this is the way government works. Remember, it is their ball game and either folks play using their rules, or they will ignore those comments. Just like football, baseball, hockey, etc. rules govern how the game is played.
Also remember, that when the comment period is over (7-13-2010), the SMART Office and the USAG, will take PUBLIC comments and their posted Supplemental Guidelines, and decide if what they posted should be changed, at all or in part or deleted, before issuing final supplemental guidelines.
Then the final supplemental guidelines will be phased in with the original final guidelines issued years ago, and sent to all state legislatures for them to work into their state registration laws. Yes, a state can accept them, or reject them, or do something similar, that state decision will be based on "substantial compliance" standards and if a state will lose funding.
So, in a trickle-down sense, whatever is decided (by SMART Office and State Legislatures) will ultimately affect every RSO in the nation somehow. This is why it is critically important to FOCUS ONLY what is in the NEW Supplemental Guidelines and how the SG will affect RSOs or their families, or even the public.As an example, in my commentary "Action Alert: RE: Supplemental Guidelines - Section II (A International Travel) REVISED" I focused on how the SG violates the Adam Walsh Act -as written- and very likely the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, an appropriate comment, considering the 2,000 character limits, may go something like this:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
The Supplemental Guide states: "SG Section II Interjurisdictional Tracking and Information Sharing-- A. International Travel: Certain features of SORNA and the SORNA Guidelines require the Department of Justice, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to develop reliable means for identifying and tracking sex offenders who enter or leave the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 16928; 73 FR at 38066–67."
42 USC 16928 states: "REGISTRATION OF SEX OFFENDERS ENTERING THE UNITED STATES. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish and maintain a system for informing the relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the United States ..."
42 USC 16928 does not permit preventing or controlling registered sex offenders who chose to LEAVE the United States.
Thank you.
And this second comment on another issue there:OAG Docket No. 134
To Whom It May Concern:
Given that, 42 USC 16928 imposes a duty on the USAG (and other federal agencies) to inform relevant jurisdictions of persons -entering the United States- who are required to register, 42 USC 16928 -in no way- permits restrictions on DOMESTIC travel (movement within the United States) of ALL registrants in every state registry.
To construe 42 USC 16928 as the Supplemental Guideline does, is overreaching and extending it to do things, it simply, is not authorized to do.
Finally, it cannot be forgotten that many RSOs are part of a family unit, and short of eradicating these family units, these overreaching controls impermissibly affect the entire family unit.
Thank you.
Short concise and to the point, no personal "blips," just like the old Dragnet show "Just the facts ma'am." Cold with no wiggle room, never good to get off on tangents when dealing with the government or politicians. If you wish to use the above example comment, which does identify an actual problem in the SG, then go ahead, or write your own from what you see in the NEW SG.
Next, when we originally learned of these NEW SG, eight issues were identified by the Juvenile Justice website, they were:1) Gives jurisdictions discretion to exempt juvenile offenders from public website posting.
2) Provides information concerning the review process for determining that jurisdictions have substantially implemented.
3) Gives jurisdictions discretion to modify the retroactive registration requirement to apply to new felony convictions only.
4) Provides mechanisms for newly recognized tribes to elect whether to become SORNA registration jurisdictions and to implement SORNA.
5) Expands required registration information to include the forms signed by sex offenders acknowledging that they were advised of their registration obligations.
6) Requires jurisdictions to exempt sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers from public website posting.
7) Requires jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance.
8) Clarifies mechanism for interjurisdictional information sharing and tracking.
Since that time I have received various e-mails where folks have expressed other concerns with five of those issues (highlighted above). I have already -in my commentary mentioned above- covered #7 and #8 (International Travel with the hidden Domestic travel controls as well, not mentioned by Juvenile Justice).
Shortly, before 7-13-2010 (end of comment period) I will address the others in newer commentaries. As folks study these NEW SG, each person sees something from a different perspective, and thats GOOD. What we need to do is let all folks know of those different perspectives to help them make informed decisions on, what and how, to comment, or not to comment on a particular issue.
So, at Regulations.gov, comment wisely, remember:MANDATORY: OAG Docket No. 134:
This must be the first thing in your comments area, this is mandatory, without this your comment will be ignored.
WHERE TO POST COMMENTS:
OK, now have your comments ready, here is where you go:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=OJP-2010-0001 Look on the lower left where it says "Comment Due 7-13-10 11:59 PM" just click on that and enter what you have prepared beforehand.
So, for now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate
PS: Regulations.gov will be back up and running at midnight 5-31-2010 they were down for maintenance over this past weekend.
In Pasco County court, inmate disputes sex offender label
A man with a short fuse, who raises issues where he is likely right about his assertions, but because of his coutroom conduct and a judge who feels courtroom conduct is more important than justice, loses and leaves in handcuffs. But, hey, this is Florida and that tells us something to!5-31-2010 Florida:
DADE CITY — Christopher Munroe was arrested with a friend in Fort Lauderdale in 2001, accused of attacking a teenager and trying to rape her.
He pleaded no contest to the charges and served time in prison. Since then, Munroe has never gone long without running astray of the law. He was branded a sex offender — unfairly, he says — and anytime a law enforcement officer checks his name, that label appears and things immediately escalate.
But Munroe's plea in South Florida did not include the sex offender registration — the judge who sentenced him didn't make it a requirement. It appears to be the action of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which maintains the registry and has the power to add names. The law says people can be sex offenders even for nonsex crimes if their crime had a "sexual component."
Munroe, for his part, denies attacking the girl and says he never would have pleaded had he known he'd be branded a sexual danger.
What's more, his friend whom police say also tried to rape the teenager took a plea in the case, like Munroe, and went to prison.
Yet his name is nowhere on Florida's sex offender registry.
Munroe's case, which wound up in Pasco County after he failed to register here, raises a constitutional question about due process — how can people challenge the evidence used to declare them sex offenders if it's not done by a judge?
He's no angel
The allegations against Munroe and his friend, Clarence Wiley, were ugly. A 16-year-old girl walking home from the beach on Sunrise Boulevard said the two men propositioned her outside a drugstore. When she said no, she told police, they grabbed her, pulled down her bathing suit and fondled her breasts. She escaped and got help from police.
Munroe, in a jailhouse interview with the Times, claimed he barely spoke to the girl. He says he was using a pay phone while Wiley chatted with the girl, who bummed a cigarette and a beer off them, then walked away.
"That was it," he said.
A police officer approached them about a half-hour later, he said, and he and Wiley were off to jail. Munroe was also accused of hitting and spitting on the officer.
He wanted to fight the charges and go to trial, but he says his lawyer advised him that because of the allegations he'd probably be found guilty of something.
Prosecutors offered Wiley 20 months in prison to plead, and he took it.
Munroe was offered 29 months.
"I said, 'All right, you know what, I'm so tired of this,' " Munroe said.
Munroe is 36, handsome and tan with lots of tattoos. He is nicknamed Miami, after growing up in South Florida where he was in a gang as a youth and first went to prison at 16 for shooting into a crowd of people.
He once told a girlfriend, "I'm not a bad guy, but I'm not a good guy either," he said.
He is the single father of two sons, 10 and 11, and two stepsons, 19 and 15, who live with their mothers. He said he makes a point of spending time with them when he's not locked up.
Not long after he got out of prison, he says, he violated his probation and went back to prison. Upon his release, in 2004, he was presented with papers to register as a sex offender.
"(A prison official) said, 'You either sign it or you don't get out of prison.' I signed the paper," Munroe said.
He listed his sister's address in Zephyrhills but never really intended to live there. He worked in New Port Richey for a few months laying carpet. He says he spent time with his kids, doing family things on weekends.
When he learned from his sister that the sex offender unit was looking for him, he says, he skipped town to Texas. When he was crossing back into the country from Mexico, a warrant turned up from Pasco for failure to register as a sex offender.
Facing five years in prison, Munroe says his public defender advised him to take a plea deal for 20 months in prison.
He did, and this time when he got out in 2006, he registered. For a while, things were going okay.
"I had just got back everything, getting back into the groove of things," he said.
But there were incidents like one in Zephyrhills, when he was walking to a convenience store, shirtless, and a cop stopped him and asked his name. The sex offender alarm rang, and soon, Munroe was facedown on the hood of the police car.
Different outcomes
Clarence Wiley, Munroe's co-defendant in the Broward County case, served his 20 months and got out of prison in 2002. Since then, he has been arrested on drug and paraphernalia possession charges and numerous times for failing to appear in court.
He pleaded to charges several times and went to jail, but he has not been back to prison.
"Out of the same case, same facts and circumstances" one person became a sex offender and one didn't, Geoff Cox, Munroe's new lawyer, told a judge in a hearing last week.
Munroe is set to be released from prison in October on his most recent failure to register charge. But he wants out sooner. He successfully appealed a claim that his lawyer didn't raise enough questions about why he had ever been required to register, and the 2nd District Court of Appeal granted him a new hearing.
Cox argued to Circuit Judge Pat Siracusa that the allegations in the police report from Broward County aren't enough to establish him as a sex offender. For one thing, police reports aren't admissible as evidence in court, so how could they be sufficient to put someone on the registry?
Even so, without a hearing, it's impossible to know if FDLE officials relied on those or something else to put Munroe on the registry, Cox said.
"There was no hearing," he said. "Due process requires there to be a hearing on the matter. That original judgment and sentence did not designate him a sex offender."
Siracusa denied Munroe's appeal. He acknowledged the discrepancy between Munroe and Wiley, but likened it to two drivers speeding and only one getting pulled over.
Siracusa decided that Munroe's first attorney was reasonable in advising him to plead after reading the police report. But he told Munroe, who lost his temper at times in the hearing, that he could fight the designation in Broward County.
"If you believe there's no sexual component, you should definitely go back and do that," the judge said.
But no one in Broward County ever designated him a sex offender, Munroe shot back.
"You violated my constitutional rights in every way, I know that much," Munroe said, vowing to appeal, as he was led away in handcuffs. ..Source.. Molly Moorhead, Times Staff Writer
Falsely Accused of Child Molestation, Plaintiff Sues
5-31-2010 Missouri:
White -v- McKinley, District Court Western Missouri:
Theodore White, Jr. brought this civil action following his prosecution, conviction, re-prosecution, and eventual acquittal for the alleged molestation of his adopted daughter. White sued his ex-wife, Tina McKinley ("Tina"), and Richard McKinley, the police officer who investigated the molestation charges and Tina's current husband. White alleged a deprivation of his constitutional rights and various common law torts.
McKinley moved for summary judgment on all counts, claiming qualified immunity.2 The district court3 denied McKinley's motion as to the (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 conspiracy claim and (2) § 1983 claim based on suppression of exculpatory evidence.4 On interlocutory appeal, we affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment. White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) ("White I").
At trial, the jury found that McKinley violated White's due process rights and conspired with Tina in violating White's rights, and it assessed actual damages of $14 million and punitive damages against both McKinley and Tina of $1 million each.
McKinley appeals,5 arguing that the district court erred in denying his (1) motion for judgment as a matter of law because he disclosed potential impeachment evidence to the prosecutor who intentionally withheld the information from White and (2) motion for a new trial because the district court improperly excluded large categories of evidence from the jury's consideration. He also asserts that the punitive damages award of $1 million is excessive and violates his due process rights in light of his net worth of $31,000. We affirm.
A broken system: sex-offender oversight
This Editorial tells us a few things, first, that since they are still talking about Garner, such cases are few and far between. And, the answer to Gardner case lies in decisions made earlier in time and not by parole or probation folks; those need to be addressed. Secondly, given a recidivism rate of around 5% or so, registries should be limited to those folks and folks deemed a higher risk by prison therapists or parole boards. Finally, before including a recidivist in a registry, their cases need review because recidivists are not necessarily dangerous, the facts of a case should determine that, so a review system is needed. Such an efficient system would allow law enforcement to focus on those considered more dangerous, esp with today's limited parole and probation, and law enforcement funds. Civil commitment, following a prison sentence (-as we know it today-), simply is unconstitutional and needs to be eliminated. Any evaluation needs to be done before sentencing and the sentence adjusted accordingly.5-31-2010 California:
Parole and probation policies at core of controversy
Earlier this month, a sex offender named Leonard Scroggins took off his GPS tracking device, left Northern California, came down here and in the span of two days attacked four different women. He had been in and out of prison since he was a teenager. Why is somebody like Leonard Scroggins out on parole?
KERNAN: It really illustrates the limitations of both parole and GPS technology. The fact of the matter is, as a law enforcement agency, we adhere to what the court sentences these offenders to, and once they complete their sentence we’re mandated to release them to parole. I know there are many ideas about one-strike and lock them up – Chelsea’s Law. It seems to me the only fail-safe way to keep offenders from preying on our children and on our public is to keep them locked up behind the walls of a prison.
Are you endorsing Chelsea’s Law?
KERNAN: The governor has indicated that he would sign Chelsea’s Law. The department doesn’t have an official position.
The one-strike provision of Chelsea’s Law is based on the premise that sexually violent people cannot be rehabilitated. Do you accept that premise?
KERNAN: The department struggles with these terrible cases and monsters like John Gardner (who pleaded guilty to the rape and murder of Chelsea and Amber). Certainly, I understand the public’s questioning of whether these guys can be rehabilitated. It’s our charge, once they are under our supervision, to try to rehabilitate them.
JENKINS: The key is identifying who those individuals are – those individuals that may have been assessed, either through a psychological evaluation or from their history, that would fit the description of a sexually violent predator. I think there’s a lot of literature that says their behavior doesn’t change. ...
One of the mistakes that frequently gets made in the conversation about sex offenders is that we use the term too broadly. A predator is different from one who flashes. But a predator, somebody who has been identified and shows a history of that behavior, those are the ones that the system should be focused on most. I think there’s a lot of literature about pedophiles who have a primary interest in underage children. There’s a lot of literature that says that those individuals never lose those proclivities.
O’BRYAN: These are people. These are brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, friends. These aren’t just mad, wild animals running around the streets. The containment model is supervision, medication and therapy. And those three things can really do a wonderful job. You have to have educated, experienced and dedicated parole agents to be working with these people and that is something that I think CDCR, or the parole division, has really failed. So, yes, you can work with a lot of sex offenders if you do it the correct way.
Where in the John Gardner case did the system break down?
KERNAN: The fact that he got a plea bargain and was only in prison for the short period of time that he was, certainly, is probably a great breakdown in the system. When he paroled, his supervision, certainly there were errors as we look back. I don’t think it was agent errors and I certainly don’t think it was intended. I always struggle to not sound defensive when I hear people critical of parole because I think my agents are out there every day in tenuous circumstances working with law enforcement and probation and the district attorneys to protect public safety, and so it’s always difficult for me to hear people throwing them in this bucket of bad supervision. I think in the Gardner case, certainly the system failed. The agents didn’t fail, I failed. If somebody’s going to take responsibility, it should be the policymakers that have limited resources, a limited budget, a number of other challenges to try to implement policies in our state that will do what I think everybody in this room would hope, and that is that we stop people like Gardner or Scroggins.
JENKINS: In Gardner’s case, certainly the system failed in its primary objective of public safety because Gardner was able to kill two girls after he came through the system. But with regard to where it broke down, if the system broke down, I think when you look at it in hindsight what appears to have happened with Gardner is that, at his contact with the system in 2000, he wasn’t identified as the predator that apparently he is.
But the psych evaluation did identify him as a predator.
JENKINS: The psych evaluation said he was unamenable to treatment. The psychologist said, based on his interaction with him, that he felt he would be a risk to underage girls for as long a time as he remained in the community. That part was really clear. ...
But one of the points that’s not commonly understood about that process is that that evaluation at that point in time was not really a sentencing evaluation. I’m not discounting the input that the psychologist offered, but the purpose of that evaluation at that point was really to determine whether the defendant was a suitable candidate for probation.
KERNAN: If we had zero-tolerance policy and we said every time a sex offender violates a condition of parole – gets a red-light violation or a low battery on his GPS – we were going to toss him into prison for four months, which is the average violation term, and not provide any treatment and then throw him right back on the street, some people would say that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with very limited resources. ..For the remainder of this opinion.. by Union-Tribune Editorial Board,
May 29, 2010
Calif. rejects limits on sex offender Internet use
Assuming these estimated figures are correct, it costs approximately $168.50 per year to monitor a sex offender's Internet use. This estimate will go a long way fighting monitoring Internet use in other states. (No. of Calif.[118,682] Registrants from NCMEC). Then there is the costs of imprisoning those who are caught violating any ban that may be included in monitoring Internet use laws. Some lawmakers lack common sense.5-29-2010 California:
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Legislation that would have banned registered sex offenders from using social networking websites has died in an Assembly committee.
On Friday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee held two Democratic bills on the issue because of cost concerns. The measures needed the panel's approval to be considered by the full Assembly next week.
A bill by Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani of Tracy would have prohibited sex offenders from using the Internet to look at pornography, social networking sites or communicate with a minor.
A Galgiani spokesman says monitoring the online activity of sex offenders could have cost the state as much as $20 million a year.
A more limited bill by Assemblywoman Norma Torres of Pomona would have banned sex offenders from online social networking websites. ..Source.. by Mercury News
Chief: There was no deal with D.A. before sex sting
To catch a predator type stings are no longer yielding masses of arrests and new sex offenders, so, the police now are targeting the gay community to increase the size of the registry. Hence, job security.5-29-2010 California:
Despite sworn testimony that police pushed for a deal, there never was a prearranged agreement with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office last year to file harsher charges in a gay sex sting, the Palm Springs police chief said Friday.
“We don't ask them to make predetermined charges,” Chief of Police David Dominguez told The Desert Sun. The district attorney files charges only “after reviewing cases (and) factual information that's presented to them.”
Dominguez's comments refute court testimony given by Palm Springs police Sgt. Bryan Anderson, who helped supervise a summer 2009 sting to curb public sex in the city's Warm Sands neighborhood.
All 24 men arrested in the Warm Sands sting face charges under California Penal Code section 314, which would require them to register as sex offenders for life on databases accessible only to authorities.
In a deposition last year, Anderson said police met with D.A. officials to “see if they would file charges that we actually asked to file.”
Anderson, concerned about the charges that resulted from prior sex stings, said he believed “it was agreed upon” that the D.A. would not reduce the charges in the Warm Sands sting operation.
Dominguez said Anderson merely “expressed his personal opinion that he was concerned but that's not the policy of the police department.”
Any prearranged agreement among the agencies to establish charges would go against Palm Springs Police Department and Riverside County D.A. policy, Dominguez said.
He added that Anderson was frustrated because Palm Springs' problems of sex in public places “have been going on for so long.”
D.A. officials also say there was no such agreement. Officials at both agencies say it's common for the two to meet in advance of a law enforcement operation to make sure everyone's familiar with what's to take place.
However, in separate testimony, a former Riverside County deputy district attorney also said there was an agreement between Palm Springs police and the D.A. Based on the meetings, those arrested in the sting could only plead under section 314, former Deputy D.A. Thomas Hughes said. ..Source.. Marcel Honoré
Grand Haven boy, 16, sentenced to 6 to 20 years in prison after failing to progress in sex offender treatment
5-29-2010 Michigan:
GRAND HAVEN -- When Fathi Cullen was sentenced three years ago for barging into a young woman's home and sexually assaulting her, a judge thought the then-13-year-old boy could get help at a special Iowa treatment center for young offenders.
On Thursday, the same judge changed his mind and sent Cullen, now 16, to adult prison for six to 20 years.
He's likely one of the youngest offenders in Ottawa County to go to prison, court officials and a local attorney said.
"It is unusual," said Richard Persinger, who often practices in Ottawa County Family Court.
"There was a hammer over this boy's head, and the judge dropped that hammer," he said.
In June 2007, Cullen walked into a home in the River Haven Village mobile home park in Grand Haven Township and attacked an 18-year-old woman. He ripped off her shirt and grabbed at her breasts and crotch before she managed to fight him off.
Cullen was convicted as an adult of sex assault and home invasion, but Judge Mark Feyen sentenced him as a juvenile in hopes he could get sex-offender help at the Woodward Academy in Iowa. The conviction gave the judge the option of sending him to prison if he failed to progress.
Cullen's juvenile record includes convictions for indecent exposure in 2005, sex assault in 2006 for groping a woman at a Meijer store in Georgetown Township, and probation violations for looking at sexual websites at school and touching a school employee inappropriately.
Family members believe his behavior likely stemmed from sexual abuse and neglect Cullen reportedly suffered as a child before he was removed from his mother and eventually adopted by Antonio and Saundra Cullen.
In recent court records, juvenile court officials said Cullen failed to abide by the rules of Lakeside Academy in Kalamazoo, where he was transferred last year. Court officials also said he was not properly completing programs, such as sex-offender treatment, and had behavioral problems.
"I really do think this is a sad case," said Ottawa County Assistant Prosecutor Jennifer Kuiper. "It's what happens when you don't follow through with the system.
"This is a pretty big sentence for someone who is 16."
During Thursday's hearing, the victim was in court to tell how the assault devastated her life, leaving her with sleepless nights.
Antonio Cullen apologized for his son and said he didn't understand the behavior.
"It's a sad day for everyone involved," said R.J. Winter, the attorney appointed to represent Cullen.
The teen will be eligible for parole at age 19 because Feyen gave Cullen credit for the nearly three years he served at the two treatment academies.
Michigan has at least two prisons geared toward younger offenders, but court officials did not know if he would be sent there. ..Source.. John Tunison | The Grand Rapids Press
May 28, 2010
States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs
5-28-2010 Washington DC:
Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police. Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.
But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.
"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.
Earlier this month, the Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.
Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.
"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — deciding who represents the greatest risk."
Incarceration's High Cost
The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.
The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as Chelsea's Law, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.
But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher, "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.
California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.
But Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the Republican sponsor of Chelsea's Law, disputes the LAO's higher cost estimates for his bill and says that even the corrections department's projected $54 million cost in 2030 would represent a small fraction of the projected state budget and "can be absorbed.
"I disagree with the criticism that I hear that the costs are too high," he says. "It's absolutely not asking too much of government to protect children from violent sex predators."
An Expanding List
At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an ever-expanding list of offenses — including public urination, "sexting" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "Romeo and Juliet" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.
The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: They are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.
But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
"Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."
Can States Bear The Cost?
Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others.
"In criminal justice, there are people who you're mad at and there are people you're afraid of," says Fletcher, the California representative. "All of our focus is on people we feel are likely to reoffend."
Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders — moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.
And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. The practical effect of the federal law would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.
The Justice Department's proposed changes would allow states more discretion about listing offenders as young as 14 on their registries, as well as offenders whose crimes predate the law's passage.
If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.
"This federal mandate is requiring all kinds of things that financially are near to impossible for states to implement," Klein says. "In these incredibly difficult fiscal times, with states near bankruptcy, it is extraordinarily hard for them to come into compliance, just for financial reasons."
The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.
"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences." ..Source.. Alan Greenblatt
In Congress: `Pre-Paid Mobile Device Identification Act' by Sen. Schumer (NY)
5-28-2010 Congress:
Title: A bill to institute an identification requirement for the purchase of pre-paid mobile devices.
5/26/2010: S-3427 was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
OK, this is a unbelievable intrusive bill as folks will see in a minute. This bill was just introduced and sent to the above committee.
In our nation there are many folks, mostly senior citizens, who do not have State or Federal issued IDs, and may want to own a inexpensive pre-paid cell phone for emergency purposes. Can you imagine them going to WalMart or other such store and having to submit the information indicated in yellow below. Hey Schumer, have you forgotten about the possibility of "Identity Theft."
Folks in Congress need to treat the American public better with their lawmaking, not everyone is a criminal or a terrorist, which is the basis Schumer is using for proposing this bill.
Further, allowing the U.S. Attorney General to come up with ANYTHING as a rule, to require of the public, for a simple cell phone purchase, is plain going too far. Their needs to be limits on what the U.S.A.G. can do or require.
I would vote NO on this bill and suggest folks contact their representatives in Washington and voice your opinions as well. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation may be contacted as well CLICK
eAdvocate
Here are the personal ID's required to purchase:SEC. 4. IDENTIFICATION VERIFICATION.(a) In Person Sales- An authorized reseller making a sale to a purchaser in person shall verify the purchaser information provided under section 3 by requiring the purchaser to display--(1) a photographic identification card issued by a Federal or State government, or a document considered acceptable for purposes of subparagraphs (B), (C), or (D) of section 274A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(b)(1)); or
(2) any 2 of the following documents:(A) A Form W-2 Wage and Tax Statement received from the Internal Revenue Service, provided that such form has been received from the Internal Revenue Service within the prior 18 months.
(B) A Form 1099 Social Security Benefit Statement received from the Social Security Administration, provided that such form has been received from the Social Security Administration within the prior 18 months.
(C) A Form 1099 received from any other agency of the Federal Government other than the Social Security Administration, including the Internal Revenue Service, provided that such form has been received within the prior 18 months.
(D) Any document containing personal identifying information that the Attorney General finds, by regulation, to be acceptable for purposes of this section.(b) Other Sales- An authorized reseller making a sale to a purchaser not in person shall verify the purchaser information provided under section 3 by requiring the purchaser to submit the following information:(1) Valid credit or debit card account information.
(2) Social Security number.
(3) Driver's license number.
(4) Any other personal identifying information that the Attorney General finds, by regulation, to be necessary for purposes of this section.
Nev. senator leaves message for rape victim's sis
5-28-2010 Nevada:
CARSON CITY, Nev.—A state senator Thursday denied he was trying to bribe a rape victim's sister when he left her a message suggesting it could be "financially beneficial" if she told the truth.
Republican Sen. Dennis Nolan later claimed he was referring to an abusive relationship with the woman's father -- an allegation the family denies -- and not the rape case that sent his friend to prison.
Nolan acknowledged leaving the voicemail on the woman's phone May 19. He told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which was first to report about the message, that he was trying to coax her to meet with him so he could wear a "wire" and record what she said.
In a rambling statement issued late Thursday, Nolan acknowledged he left three messages on the woman's cell phone. He said they weren't about the rape case, but to get her to discredit her father, Tim Anderson, who has been attacking Nolan in ads supporting his opponent in the June 8 primary.
"What kind of a person defends a child rapist who sexually assaults our kids," the ad says. "Vote against Sen. Dennis Nolan. Tell him that defending child rapists is not OK."
Nolan accused Anderson of being abusive. Anderson, who lives in Arizona, denied Nolan's charges.
One of the messages was released by Nolan's opponent, Elizabeth Halseth, on her website Wednesday.
"The one message the Halseth camp chose to publish was the one in which I implied there were individuals who were interested in 'compensating' her to tell the truth about the real reasons her father has chosen to attack me," Nolan's statement said.
The other two messages, he said, "were of me imploring this woman" to voluntarily come forward and tell the truth.
"I realize my tactics in this case were somewhat unorthodox but I never have really cared to be politically correct," Nolan said.
The rape case involves Gordon Lawes, 28, who was convicted in 2008 of raping a girl four years earlier, when she was 16 years old. He was sentenced to life in prison with parole possible after 10 years. The case is under appeal.
Nolan told the newspaper he believed the sister, who was Lawes' wife at the time, would say the sex was consensual.
Nolan, 48, testified as a character witness for Lawes at his trial. Lawes had been a campaign volunteer for Nolan, and the two played club hockey together.
During the trial, a prosecutor said Lawes admitted to police that he walked naked down the stairs and had sex with the teen who was "passed out drunk," according to published reports at the time.
"The deal is, he came out to defend a rapist who admitted to it, then tried to bribe her sister," Anderson, the victim's father, told The Associated Press.
On the recording released by Halseth's campaign, a man who identifies himself as "Dennis" says a lot of people have a "serious interest" in the race. "I think that, um, it could be very financially beneficial, um, for you to consider telling the truth."
It went on, "Give me a call a little later on and I will, uh, give you more details on it." The caller says he got a call from some people who'd like to "see this thing cleared up and ... have the resources to back that up."
Nolan was first elected in 1994 to the Nevada Assembly, where he served until his election to the Senate in 2002. ..Source.. Sandra Chereb
OFF TOPIC: Teachers Suspended for Showing Flex Your Rights Video
5-26-2010 Virginia:
Since Flex Your Rights was founded in 2002 to educate the public about constitutional rights during police encounters, our work has met with very little controversy. Every citizen should understand their basic Bill of Rights protections, and our materials have been embraced by both police and the public. That's why we're deeply concerned about today's news that two high school teachers in Virginia were suspended after showing one of our videos to their students:
Two Norview High School teachers were placed on paid administrative leave this week after a parent complained that they distributed classroom materials that gave advice on how to deal with police if stopped.Millions of these encounters occur each year in America, and it is plainly absurd to suggest that our young people should receive no education in how to handle them. People who understand their rights and know what to expect during a police encounter are less likely to make regrettable decisions, thus our materials reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes for both individuals and officers of the law.
…
The video, “Busted: Citizen’s Guide to Surviving Police Encounters,” is posted online HERE. It opens with a portrayal of young adults stopped by a traffic officer who searches their car and arrests them for marijuana possession.
…
A commentator on the video states, "Whether or not you break the law, this video is designed to explain what the law is and how you can legally and properly assert your constitutional rights through even the most stressful police encounters."
For each scene, the commentator explains how legal rights apply to police searches of vehicles, homes or individuals and how people can cite those rights during encounters with police. [The Virginian-Pilot]
For the remainder of this post: by Scott Morgan
'Chelsea's Law' Could Cost Millions To Enforce
It simply boggles the mind to see how easy it is for politicians to sap every taxpayers with no assurances that the politician's theory will actually protect the masses of children in society, which they use as apretext for these laws. Should only families with children pay for these political laws, or should all taxpayers be responsible? Such questions would likely bring some sensibility to enacting such laws, no doubt many more taxpayers would speak up, both for and against..5-22-2010 California:
A state corrections department analysis of a bill being considered by California lawmakers found that mandating life sentences for some child molesters and lifetime parole for others would cost tens of millions of dollars annually after the first decade.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst puts the ultimate tab much higher: hundreds of millions of dollars each year, some of it to build new cells for sex offenders serving longer terms.
The projections come as the Assembly Appropriations Committee prepares to consider on Friday whether the state can afford the bill named after 17-year-old Chelsea King. Convicted child molester John Albert Gardner III was sentenced to life in prison this month after pleading guilty to raping and murdering King and 14-year-old Amber Dubois in San Diego County.
Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, said AB1844, nicknamed Chelsea's Law, would have a relatively low cost for the first decade. He said it is worth the money to protect children.
The annual cost would top $1 million in 2015, $9 million by 2020, and $54 million by 2030, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
It would add nearly 400 inmates and increase the number of parolees by more than 7,300 by 2030, the department projects.
"We would consider this to be a conservative estimate," Jay Atkinson, chief of the department's Offender Information Services Branch, said Saturday. "The impact won't truly be seen until way far out in the future."
The legislative analyst said increasing penalties would cost "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and "at least in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually after several decades."
Backers, who include Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Assembly Speaker John Perez, have not suggested any funding source beyond taking the money from the existing state budget, which faces a $19 billion deficit this year.
"There's virtually no cost for a decade," said Fletcher. "If you look at a budget that annually exceeds $100 billion a year, that's a small price to pay to protect our children."
His bill would allow life sentences for a first offense of forcible sex crimes involving a child under 18, up from the current 15-year to 25-year sentence. The life term would be reserved for cases with aggravating factors that include kidnapping, using a weapon, torture, binding or drugging a victim or a previous sex crime conviction.
It would double sentences for some other sex crimes involving children and double parole to 10 years for felons released after serving sentences for forcible sex crimes.
The bill also would require the state to use GPS tracking for lifetime monitoring of those convicted of forcible sex crimes against children under 14. Currently, most tracking ends when offenders leave parole, despite an existing state lifetime monitoring law.
It would ban sex offenders from parks, going beyond the state law that already limits how close offenders can live to schools and parks.
The Assembly analysis suggests deleting provisions that could potentially send offenders to prison for life for inflicting a bruise during a sex crime, or subject them to lifetime parole for acts that could include touching a child over his or her clothing. That would cut the bill's costs substantially, the analysis said.
"I think it's undeniable there are significant costs," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who chairs the Senate Public Safety Committee. "It's clearly a very important issue, a highly emotional issue, and we need to be grounding ourselves in fact."
Fletcher said he is open to minor changes. But he said backers will go to voters with an initiative before they accept major amendments. ..Source.. KCAL9.com
Sex offender fallout hitting unrelated laws
5-26-2010 National:
From our friends at: In The News by Karen Franklin
Flawed idea would penalize indigent mentally ill
The U.S. state of Delaware marks the letter "Y" on the driver's licenses of sex offenders. Louisiana emblazons the words "SEX OFFENDER." Here in California, a politician running for state attorney general is trying to bootstrap a victory in next week's primary election with a copycat proposal.
Imagine the shame and humiliation when the young store clerk asks for your ID to verify your credit card signature. It's just one more brick in the wall of internal banishment, which -- as law professor Corey Rayburn Yung has pointed out -- is drastically changing the face of American culture.
Of course, shaming and banishment are nothing compared with the murders driven by this hysterical and counterproductive scapegoating. Take the unfortunate Florida man who was beaten to death with a baseball bat in his own home by two men who thought he was a convicted sex offender. As it turns out, the elderly gentleman had no criminal record whatsoever; he just happened to share the same name as a sex offender.
Some may dismiss that murder as the rash act of a couple of drunken hooligans. But, as I blogged about back in 2007, such vigilanteism is not uncommon. It is fueled by the rhetoric of our presumably rational leaders -- politicians, policy makers, even mental health experts. In my primary election voter's guide, almost every candidate down to the dogcatcher is promising to make the world safer from sex criminals like Phillip Garrido.
For the remainder of this SUPER POST: by Karen Franklin
Adam Walsh Act is iffy means to a noble end
It is wonderful to see the media question a U.S. Supreme court decision. This opinion sums up "THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. ... Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984).," by saying "But not all means can be used to serve a noble end."5-28-2010 Texas:
Adam Walsh was 6 when he was abducted from a Florida department store and killed in 1981. Years later, police concluded that a convicted pedophile was the culprit. The boy’s father, John Walsh, became a high-profile advocate for children and crime victims and host of TV’s America’s Most Wanted.
So it’s understandable that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act would be seen as an important crime prevention tool.
The 2006 law created a national sex offender registry, increased penalties for federal crimes against children and got tougher on child pornography. But it also gave the federal government unprecedented power to keep convicted criminals imprisoned after they served their sentences.
And that’s why the Supreme Court is considering whether the law unconstitutionally expands congressional power.
A basic principle of criminal law is that someone who commits an offense against society must pay a penalty. Elected legislators set parameters for punishment, based on the severity of the crime. Juries and judges then decide actual punishment warranted in individual cases. Once a fine is paid or a sentence is served, those who committed the crimes are allowed to go on with their lives, having paid their debt to society.
When prisoners are released, the government can attach reasonable conditions of probation or parole. But the government can’t add punishment once a sentence is served. The Constitution — and justice — don’t [sic] [doesn't] allow that.
But that’s essentially what the Adam Walsh Act allows. When prisoners convicted of sex-related crimes were finishing their federal sentences, the attorney general designated them as "sexually dangerous" and kept them in prison, some now years beyond the length of their original sentences.
The Justice Department argues that the Constitution allows this under Congress’ power to take "necessary and proper" action to enforce the law, including running a criminal justice system.
But inmates challenging the law counter that this is federal intrusion into traditional power of the states to police sex-related violence, most of which doesn’t involve interstate commerce. Besides that, if the federal government can hold people to prevent them from committing future sex crimes, it could continue holding any inmates it wants to prevent them from doing other unlawful things.
But the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government power to imprison people for crimes they haven’t been convicted of, or just to protect society, no matter how worthy that goal.
That doesn’t mean clearly dangerous people must be let out into society. To protect their residents, states can take civil custody of individuals who pose a serious public safety risk — based on evidence presented in a procedure that provides due process protections.
But if existing punishments aren’t enough to keep dangerous people from causing more harm, elected officials should reconsider whether sentences for certain crimes should be revised. If a civil commitment component should be added to prison time for some offenses, that should be put into the law upfront, not done after the fact.
Society has a vested interest in keeping people safe from sexual violence and sex crimes against children. But not all means can be used to serve a noble end. ..Opinion of.. Star-Telegram
May 27, 2010
To catch predators – and keep them forever
5-27-2010 Ohio:
Anyone who has followed this column for the last several years knows how passionately I feel about victim’s rights and recovery for those who have suffered sexual violence or assault. When one in five women in America and one in six African-American men or women are reportedly victims of sexual violence in this country we cannot sit by and let others suffer in silence because of our old-fashioned puritanical views of sexual propriety.
I am in favor of tough sentences for sexual predators, and I cheer every time “To Catch a Predator” host Chris Hanson shocks some pervert sitting in his underwear in a suburban kitchen. Despite all that, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that sexual predators can be held indefinitely is something that any American – even an advocate for sexual violence – has to stand against.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on the case of U.S. vs. Comstock. The case revolved around actions taken by former President Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzalez in 2006 after the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” host John Walsh, specified that the federal government could indefinitely hold convicted or ‘potential’ sex offenders if they were deemed as likely to commit crimes in the future. Gonzalez used this act to continue the sentences of several men who had already served jail time for obtaining child pornography. The men sued, and the case made it’s way to the highest court in the land. The dissenting ruling from Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas stated unequivocally that continuing to hold someone in jail even after they have served their sentence is a grotesque violation of the Constitution.
I believe the sky is falling, pigs are flying and dogs and cats are living together in peace, because I have found myself agreeing with something that Scalia and his law clerk, Clarence Thomas, have written. I am as in favor of locking away pedophiles and throwing away the key as the next person, but this law is not going to accomplish anything but taking the nation down a slippery slope towards martial law. If someone has committed a crime and then gone to trial and been sentenced they should serve that sentence fully and completely. However, when the sentence is over they are free to go and should be able to go back and try to make their way into society. Retroactively passing a law that allows the federal government to extend your sentence indefinitely makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.
Further, the ruling essentially falls on the side of saying that jail is for rehabilitation rather than punishment. Prison can serve two purposes. Some guys just need to go to jail as punishment because they knocked over a liquor store. But for other criminals, rehabilitation is not a bad idea. Prison can give some wayward men and women job training, get them off drugs and help them make something of themselves after years of crime. But we cannot change our sentencing structure because of this logic. If a stint in jail doesn’t rehabilitate someone it doesn’t mean we can just make them stay longer. If some psycho doesn’t think jail is a punishment but is in fact a way to gain street cred, we can’t then decide to change sentences around to fit his crazy psychology.
The horrible extension of this ruling is apparent to anyone who’s read “1984” or seen any other dystopian future. If the court can now legally and retroactively extend sentences for sexual offenders, what’s to stop them from doing the same thing against people accused of other crimes? If a court appointed counselor determines that I’m not penitent enough about stealing a car, can they keep me around longer until I seem sorry? What about embezzlers, con artists or even accused terrorists? Most of these folks are going to commit crimes again. Should they just go to jail forever? In an attempt to solve one problem the court has caused potentially dozens of others.
I favor just about any punishment you can think of for men and women who commit acts of sexual violence against others. Jail, chemical castration, and in some cases I don’t know that those who commit these crimes can be rehabilitated. However, I do know this: throwing out our Constitution to capture potential repeat offenders is not going to make anyone safer. If anything, it leads us ever closer to giving up our rights for safety that can’t be achieved. ..Opinion of.. Dr. Jason Johnson is an associate professor of political science and communications at Hiram College in Ohio. He can be reached at johnsonja@hiram.edu
Ohio House backs making teen 'sexting' crime
5-27-2010 Ohio:
Bill rules out harsh penalties because it’s only for minors
The Ohio House yesterday passed a bill that would punish teenagers for "sexting" but ensure that they do not face harsh punishment or be put on the sex-offender registry normally associated with transmitting nude pictures of minors.
"This is a growing problem that must be addressed in the most responsible and effective way," said sponsor Connie Pillich, D-Montgomery, who introduced the bill about a year after a House Republican pushed a similar measure. "Is this behavior bad? Yes. Does it warrant a life sentence as a sex offender? No."
As technology has made it increasingly easy to take pictures and transmit them, studies say a growing number of teenagers are sending nude pictures of themselves or others in what is commonly known as sexting.
But the problem for law-enforcement officers and prosecutors is how to treat these situations under existing law, which is designed to harshly punish those who transmit such pictures and was largely written long before sexting was even possible.
Pillich noted cases in Pennsylvania and Ohio in which teenage girls faced serious child-pornography charges for sending nude photos of themselves.
"One of the central tenets of our juvenile-justice system is that children are to be treated differently than adults," Pillich said.
House Bill 473 creates the new offense of sexting and applies it only to minors, classifying the sending of a nude photo of oneself as an unruly act and the sending of a photo of another as a misdemeanor.
The bill passed 86-12. Some members were concerned that the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association opposed the measure. Prosecutors argued that some offenses with potentially devastating consequences are being improperly reduced, sending the wrong message about the seriousness of the offenses.
"This is a serious matter, and I think if we're really concerned about the safety of these young people and properly handling this serious offense, we should listen to what prosecutors say ... and take it back and redo it again," said Rep. Danny Bubp, R-West Union.
The bill goes to the Senate. ..Source.. Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Crist signs tougher sex offender laws
A law looking for a problem. Claimed to be another law enforcement tool, right, another way to falsly accused registrants of something in Florida's effort to lock up everyone.5-27-2010 Florida:
New legislation pleases local law enforcement
MANATEE — Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill Wednesday that will make sex offender laws tougher, to the delight of local law enforcement who say it will give them more tools to keep the public safe.
Crist signed into law House Bill 119, which allows law enforcement to arrest any sex offender found to be loitering or prowling within 300 feet of any place where children were congregating.
The law also states law enforcement can arrest any sex offender who attempts to engage or communicate with a child in a sexual nature at a public park or playground. The bill prohibits sex offenders from going on the grounds of a child care or Pre-K facility without prior notification of staff, if the offender is not a parent or grandparent of a child who attends the school.
With the governor’s signature, the new laws took effect immediately, welcome news for one detective charged with monitoring the 315 sex offenders and predators registered with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement in Manatee County.
“I think it’s great. It just gives us more tools to work with,” said Manatee County Sheriff’s Office Sex Offender Unit Detective Kim Zink.
Zink said she especially likes tighter restrictions on sex offenders visiting places where children congregate, such as pools and public parks. Sex offender laws did not cover those locations like they do public schools or churches.
“I have always hated telling the public that the laws don’t cover those things,” Zink said.
Zink said the new laws governing sex offenders at child care and Pre-K facilities will also benefit law enforcement. That’s because private child care and educational facilities also were not covered by state law, unlike public schools which have sophisticated computer screening processes for all visitors, she said. ..Source.. ROBERT NAPPER
May 26, 2010
Calif. to consider marked IDs for sex offenders
Legal? Maybe not...See commentary before the U.S. Supreme court below!5-26-2010 California:
SAN DIEGO -- The father of a 14-year-old San Diego-area girl who was raped and murdered backed legislation Tuesday to require marked driver's licenses for registered sex offenders in California.
Maurice Dubois announced his support of the bill proposed by Assemblymen Pedro Nava and Paul Cook that would require sex offenders to carry the license or another government-issued identification card when they leave home.
The documents could include a distinctive stripe or color.
Registered sex offender John Albert Gardner III was sentenced to life in prison this month for killing Amber Dubois and 17-year-old Chelsea King.
Amber vanished while walking to school in February 2009. ..Source.. by Forbes.com
COMMENTARY from U.S. Supreme Court:
Does this violate the ex post facto clause, most would say, no, but read on. When RSOs go in to register they provide information to the registry. Then the registry displays certain of that information on a public registry; all state action. However, driver's licenses and license plates are vastly different. How you ask? Well, who is carrying the state's message, the RSO, that is not like the state displaying information on the Internet. In the U.S. Supreme court, the case of Smith v. Doe (Sex offender registration), during Oral Argument the following discussion took place between Mr. Olson (then Solicitor General for the U.S.) and Justice Kennedy:
Justice Kennedy QUESTION: Could -- could the State require a special mark on your license plate?So, who is carrying the message? It is the RSO when it is on his driver's license or license plate. That distinction, following the sentencing where it was not part of the sentence, could very well be construed as further punishment. i.e., a ex post facto violation. Apparently, there is something in law about, who carries the message, and lawyers know about this. Now to find those lawyers to fight the issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme court. That may be easier said than done.
MR. OLSON: No, I -- well, I don't know, Justice Kennedy, but I would say that would be considerably different than what's here because that would --
QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.
MR. OLSON: Pardon me?
QUESTION: I don't think it's very different.
MR. OLSON: I -- I respectfully submit that it's a great deal different. That mark on your license plate, or mark on your forehead would go wherever you would go. It would require you to carry the government's message rather than the government supplying the message.
QUESTION: Well, this statute requires you to make the government's message four times a year.
MR. OLSON: It only -- it doesn't require you to make the government's message four times a year. The government's message, I respectfully submit, is made when a citizen submits an inquiry to the State through the Internet listing. All -- it is required four times a year is to advise the government of a current location or current information so that the information on the registry is accurate and -- and up-to-date.
Sex sting draws complaints of targeting gays
5-26-2010 California:
Tensions are rising in Palm Springs following recent court allegations that police singled out gay men when enforcing the city's laws against indecent exposure and sex in public.
Those allegations, part of a motion filed May 4 in Riverside County Superior Court, stem from a summer 2009 Palm Springs police sting operation aimed at curbing public sex in the city's Warm Sands neighborhood.
All 24 men nabbed in the Warm Sands sting face misdemeanor indecent exposure charges that would require them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, according to the Riverside County District Attorney's office.
Roger Tansey, an Indio-based deputy public defender representing five of the accused, alleges Palm Springs police routinely target gay men when enforcing the laws against public sex acts and turn a blind eye to heterosexuals.
“Absolutely nobody has a right to have sex in public,” Tansey said. “But the declarations we have filed show ... only blocks away from Warm Sands, men and women — heterosexuals — are doing the same thing. They're given a free pass to play.”
The Palm Springs Police Department declined to comment on the sting or the allegations.
Tansey's motion also alleges Palm Springs police and DA officials met prior to the Warm Sands sting and agreed in advance to charge all those arrested with indecent exposure requiring a lifetime sex offender registry.
DA spokesman Michael Jeandron disputed Tansey's claims.
“Each case is different” and considered on its own merits, Jeandron said.
“Our office does not charge someone based on their sexual orientation,” he added. “It's not a factor. It's not considered. We charge someone based on their criminal conduct.”
The DA plans to respond formally to Tansey's claims prior to a June 14 hearing before a Superior Court judge, he added.
Thomas Hughes, a San Diego-based criminal defense attorney who served nearly three years as deputy Riverside County District Attorney, called it “unusual” for his former colleagues to pursue a lifetime sex-offender registry, under California Penal Code section 314, for the Palm Springs sting. ..For the remiander of this article.. Marcel Honoré
Sexually violent predator petitions must be refiled
5-26-2010 Indiana:
The status as a sexually violent predator for two inmates stands for now, but the Indiana Court of Appeals directed the men to refile their motions to remove that status pursuant to the recently amended statute dealing with this issue.
In Stuart A. Clampitt v. State of Indiana , No. 49A04-0912-CR-686, and Spencer R. Wiggins v. State of Indiana , No. 45A03-0912-CR-613, the appellate judges were unable to address the inmates' claims because of a lack of an established record. Both Stewart Clampitt and Spencer Wiggins, inmates in the New Castle Correctional Facility, appealed the denial of their motions to remove their statuses as sexually violent predators.
Clampitt was convicted in 1996 of felony child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor. Clampitt discovered he was listed as a sexually violent predator in Marion County and believed the application of the current SVP status is an ex post facto law.
Wiggins was convicted in 1996 of felony attempted murder, rape, criminal deviate conduct, robbery, and confinement. He argued the trial court failed to make the determination before consulting with a board of experts and that he is being punished retroactively.
In both opinions, the Court of Appeals outlined Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-22, which was amended during the 2010 Indiana General Assembly and provides guidance on the proper procedures for challenging status as a sex offender. In both cases, the appellate court directed the men to refile their challenges in the proper county pursuant to Indiana Code. The men need to file their motions in the counties in which they reside instead of where the original action occurred. ..Source.. Jennifer Nelson
Law Adds Video Voyeurs to Sex Offender Registry
5-26-2010 Wisconsin:
A new state law now lets judges put video voyeurs on the sex offender registry.
Video voyeurism is classified as a felony. It's when someone records another person in the nude without their consent, makes copies of the recording, or distributes them.
The law says if a person is convicted of video voyeurism, a court can order them to register with the Department of Corrections as a sex offender.
Advocates of this new law say it'll serve as a deterrent and will protect potential victims.
They point to its relevance considering several video voyeurism cases from our area -- including Francis Lee of Green Bay, who allegedly placed hidden cameras in his tanning salon to watch people undress, and Cecil Lewis in Outagamie County, who's accused of secretly taping women and having dozens of tapes.
Representative Ted Zigmunt, who authored the original bill, says the law will protect people because no one wants to see their name on the sex offender registry.
"Hopefully for the persons with cell phones and all these things, persons thinking of taking an inappropriate picture and putting it on the Internet, that maybe they'll think twice," Zigmunt said.
The Francis Creek Democrat authored the original bill. He said offenders shouldn't be able to fly under the radar.
Brown County sheriff's captain Jeff Sanborn says offenses like this are all too common.
"We have two detectives now just dedicated to computer crimes, and a lot of that comes into play with video voyeurism," Captain Sanborn said.
Sanborn says if the law prevents even a small number of offenders from committing a crime, it's served its purpose.
"It might take a little time, but as soon as you start seeing persons' pictures out there on the sex offender registry it's going to hit home for a lot of people," Sanborn said.
Under this law, if a person under the age of 21 commits video voyeurism but serves their sentence, a judge can decide they don't have to register as a sex offender. ..Source..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
