When lawmakers weave a law so tight, that goes both ways, here we see the officer claiming he doesn't work on Sunday. In other words, the registrant can't perform his duties either because of the way the law is worded. Lawmakers must assure that local jurisdictions make themselves available according to the way the law is worded.4-6-2011 Ohio:
LISBON - The sheriff's deputy in charge of keeping track of registered sex offenders said they followed the law in the case that resulted in charges being dismissed.
"My concern is that it makes it sound like we dropped the ball and we didn't," said Sgt. Dan Bradley of the Columbiana County Sheriff's Office.
Bradley's comments were in response to a recent ruling by county Common Pleas Court Judge Scott Washam, who dismissed charges of violating sex offender registration requirements against ___ Washam said the sheriff's office failed to follow the law.
___, 31, of Neeld Road, was indicted last year for failing to verify his current address with the local county sheriff, which he was required to do after pleading guilty to sexual battery charges against an adult female in 2001. The charged carried a maximum sentence of five years in prison.
___ failed to notify the sheriff's office of his current address by the Oct. 2, 2010, deadline. The warning letter advising ___he was in violation of the notification requirement was dated Oct. 4 and mailed the next day. Washam said the law requires the warning letter be sent the next day following the verification date, which would have been Oct. 3.
Bradley said the problem was the verification date, Oct. 2, fell on a Saturday, "and I don't work seven days a week ... In order for us to comply with the judge's order we would have to send the notice out on Sunday, which is physically impossible since the post office isn't open on Sunday."
Bradley prepared the warning letter and sent it out when he returned to work on Monday, Oct. 4.
The warning letter told ___ he had to report by Oct. 11, but the law gives the defendant seven days from when the letter actually was mailed, which Washam noted made the reporting date be Oct. 12.
Washam also noted in his ruling the warning letter was sent by certified mail, thereby requiring ____ signature. Repeat notices were sent out until one arrived on Oct. 21, when ____ was at home to sign for it.
Bradley said this is not the first a reporting date fell on a weekend and the defendant failed to show up, nor will it be the last, "but this is the way the (state) attorney general's office told us to do it."
"Everything we do in regard to this is how we've been trained by the attorney general's office to do it ... I don't want the public to think we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing," he said. ..Source.. by TOM GIAMBRONI , Salem News
No comments:
Post a Comment