December 26, 2016
Proposed bill could decrease punishment for 18-year-old sex offenders in Montana
BILLINGS - A proposed Montana bill that is set for a hearing next week would decrease the punishment for an 18-year-old convicted of having sex with a minor, if no force was used.
Senate Bill 26, which is sponsored by MT State Sen. Sue Malek (D-Missoula), would amend Montana law regarding the crime of sexual intercourse without consent.
The age of consent in Montana is 16, meaning a minor under that age can not legally consent to sex even if the minor has sex with another person willingly.
Any adult who has sex with a minor under the age of consent can be sentenced to prison and required to register as a sex offender.
Sex offenders are ranked on a tier system, where 1 is the lowest risk to re-offend and 3 is the highest risk.
All sex offenders are required by law to register an address and phone number with the state and give notice when that information changes.
SB 26 would not make it legal for an 18-year-old to have sexual contact with a person under the age of consent.
But if it was determined that no force was used and the offender is not a risk to the public, an 18-year-old offender could be exempted from registering as a sex offender, according to SB 26.
"[This applies if] the court finds that the alleged conduct was consensual as indicated by words or overt actions indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact,” the bill reads.
The bill would also cap the maximum penalty at five years imprisonment for such an offender.
The bill states that the offender must be 18 or younger and the victim must be 14 or older at the time of the offense for these proposed changes to apply.
The hearing is set for January 5. ..Source.. by Aja Goare
September 8, 2016
Sex offender charged with threatening prosecutors, judges
KALISPELL, Mont. (AP) — A man who refuses to register as a sex offender because he says he's innocent has been arrested for sending letters to law enforcement agencies threatening to kill Flathead County judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers to draw attention to the injustices he says he has suffered, prosecutors said.
Dale Michael Hanson was arrested on Aug. 24 and charged the next day with felony intimidation. He has been in hiding for years. A 2009 arrest warrant charges him with failing to register as a sex offender. His bail was set at $500,000. He did not enter a plea and is scheduled to be arraigned in District Court on Sept. 22.
Public defender Sean Hinchey said he met with Hanson to review the charges, but he wasn't sure what his client's approach will be.
Hanson, 65, served 10 years in prison for a 1995 sexual assault on his girlfriend's 5-year-old son. He has continued to challenge his conviction, arguing that the boy could have been coached by his mother, who had left voicemails on Hanson's answering machine threatening to get back at him for allegedly being involved with other women. The voicemails were not admitted into evidence during Hanson's trial.
His legal team also claimed a now-deceased sheriff's deputy who investigated the case advised some people who might have testified on Hanson's behalf to stay away until after the trial.
However, his appeal was dismissed when he failed to show up for three scheduled depositions because he faced arrest due to the 2009 warrant. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal.
The intimidation charge alleges Hanson send a letter to the U.S. Marshal's Service on Aug. 3 warning them that "there are going to be a bunch of dead people if your agency does not intervene on my behalf!"
He said he has been fighting the "Nazi bastards of Flathead County" for 22 years for crimes he said he did not commit and that he was going to "start killing people to get public attention."
The letter included a list of 18 people against whom he sought to get revenge including the victim, judges, several attorneys and a counselor.
The Flathead County sheriff's office received a similar letter in which Hanson reportedly said he would kill as many law enforcement officers as he could before they kill him.
"They may take my life, but they'll never take my freedom again!" ..Source.. by The Daily Progress
April 14, 2015
Senate panel advances sex offender residency bill
No one has yet shown a single case where a RSO, living within xx feet of a school (or other protected area), has victimized someone in that protected place/area. This sky is falling nonsense is now governing all such political legislation.4-14-15 Montana:
UPDATE: Montana Senate panel advances bill to restrict sex offenders from living near children
HELENA (AP) – A plan to keep high-risk sex offenders from living near children advanced out of a Montana Senate panel Tuesday.
The bill restricts adults who victimized young people from living within 300 feet of an established daycare center, playground, park, athletic facility or any place where children live.
Sponsor Rep. Jeff Essmann said his constituents have repeatedly told him they don't want known predators living near elementary schools.
One woman asked "'Can you do something about the sex offender that lives right up there?' and pointed to an apartment window right across the fence from the playground behind her Montessori school," the Billings Republican said.
No one spoke for or against the bill on Tuesday. At its hearing in the House in January, parents supporting the bill and representatives of various organizations opposing the bill disagreed on whether geographic restrictions have been effective in keeping communities safer.
House Bill 219 cleared the House by a wide margin.
The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the measure on an 8-4 vote Tuesday with Democrats in opposition. One Democrat voted with seven Republicans in favor.
Democratic Sen. Robyn Driscoll voted against the bill because the Legislature is advancing a separate proposal that she said could send more sex offenders to a treatment facility that happens to be next to a school.
Senate Bill 411 would phase out the Montana Developmental Center in Boulder amid allegations of abuse and neglect. Other than jail or the state hospital, the center provides the only court-ordered residency option for some sex offenders with mental disabilities.
"I don't feel like we can have it both ways; we can't close MDC and have this bill," Driscoll said.
Sen. Chas Vincent, R-Libby, defended the bill, which applies only to offenders recognized by the state as violent predators who may threaten public safety.
"I personally support not allowing class-three sexual offenders to ever live where they're in close proximity to minors," Vincent said.
Sen. Mary Sheehy Moe, D-Great Falls, opposed the bill because it would force offenders to relocate every time a family moves into their apartment building or neighboring home.
Eighteen states have enacted laws restricting sex offenders' residencies in some way, according to information from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eleven of those specifically restrict offenders from living near children.
Essmann said his previous proposals to geographically restrict sex offenders failed in recent years because they would have applied to all levels of offenders.
"We're focused down now to a very small group of high-risk offenders," he said. ..Source.. by Alison Noon
April 4, 2015
MT DOJ announces new Sexual or Violent Offender Registry email notification
Scroll down for other important info about Montana registry and sexual offense laws.4-4-15 Montana:
HELENA - The Montana Department of Justice announced a new service that can tell you when a violent or sexual offender moves into your area. The Sexual or Violent Offender Registry is a searchable database that tracks more than 2,000 sex offenders and 3,300 violent offenders in Montana. ... ... ... ...
Fox says last year the SVOR website received 226,000 hits, and its mapping feature was used more than 600,000 times.
Here is more information about what information is reported in the database. ..Continued.. by MTN News
Montana sex offenders face new set of restrictions
BILLINGS - Montana sex offenders' online and geographic freedoms could soon become more restricted.
Two bills in the state House sponsored by Billings Representatives, HB 88 enacted and HB 219 Proposed, take aim at the growing list of 2,271 sex offenders in the state.
The existing law requires sexual offenders to register his or her name, address, and phone number with the county at least once a year.
There are more than 400 sexual offenders in Yellowstone County.
HB 88, which was signed into law by Gov. Steve Bullock on March 24, states that offenders must now provide to the registry all email and social media accounts.
According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, one in 25 teens is sexually solicited by a person who attempts to meet offline after making contact online.Supporters of this new law, sponsored by Rep. Sarah Laszloffy (R-Billings), say this new requirement could help detectives keep a watch on sex offenders' online activity and interactions.
There is nothing in the DOJ Study which says the teens are contacted by registered sex offenders. This article IMPROPERLY implies such!
HB 88 also requires any out-of-state sexual offender to undergo a psychosexual evaluation to determine a risk level upon moving to Montana.
A bill sponsored by Rep. Jeff Essman (R-Billings) to restrict where sexual offenders may reside, work, or travel passed in the House and was referred to the Senate committee Wednesday.
HB 219 creates geographic restrictions for Tier III sexual offenders, a designation for the most high-risk offenders.
The bill states that a Tier III sexual offender would be prohibited by law from establishing residency within 300 feet of a school, day care center, playground, park, or any facility that primarily serves minors.
The sexual offender would also not be able to live in the same home as a minor unless the offender was the primary care giver of the minor.
This bill is not retroactive, meaning offenders who already lived near or with a minor would not be forced to move.
A sexual offender who is not compliant could face a felony charge.
HB 219 is an amended version of a bill Essman sponsored in 2011 that would place geographic restrictions on all sexual offenders, but that bill died in committee.
Those in support of HB 219 say it will help protect children from sexual predators.
Civil rights groups have previously argued it imposes upon the rights of sexual offenders who have not committed crimes against children.
A hearing has not been set for the bill. ..Source.. by Aja Goare
January 29, 2015
Bill aims to keep sex offenders from living near kids
HELENA (AP) – Some convicted sex offenders could not live within 300 feet of schools or other facilities frequented by children under a bill Montana lawmakers considered Thursday.
Rep. Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, introduced House Bill 219 in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday.
The bill would bar high-risk sex offenders from residing within 300 feet of a school, day care, playground, park, athletic field or any facility that primarily serves minors. It is aimed at offenders who committed a sexual offense against a person younger than 13.
Except their own children, the offenders also could not live “in a place where a minor resides.” Essmann said that includes an apartment building, duplex or shared living space where anyone under 18 lives.
It’s the third time Essmann has introduced legislation to put geographical restrictions on sex offenders. Previous versions failed because of vague language in the bill, but Essmann said restricting the regulation only to “high-risk” offenders should mitigate those worries.
Brenda Erdelyi, a clinical member of the Montana Sex Offender Treatment Association, said the text could stand to be even clearer. Erdelyi said that without including Montana’s existing terminology used to describe certain sex offenders who are threats to public safety, some people who are not threats could be unfairly affected by the bill.
“It’s easy to paint with a broad brush in regard to how we approach managing sexual offenders in the community,” she said. “But that’s the easy way to do it — it’s not necessarily the appropriate way to do it.”
Niki Zupanic, a representative of American Civil Liberties Union of Montana, told Essmann that she appreciated the language change in his latest proposal, but opposed HB 219.
Zupanic said isolating offenders would do more harm than good. The bill would force the offenders out of city centers and away from access to employment and a support system, she said.
“Geographic restrictions do isolate an offender just at the critical time when he or she can be attempting to reintegrate back into society,” Zupanic said.
Those supporting and opposing the bill disagreed on whether geographic restrictions have proven effective in keeping communities safer.
According to a state budget agency, typically one person under 18 is registered as a high-risk sex offender every year. The state would need to pay for youth offenders to be housed out of state because no youth detention, foster care or family housing that includes young siblings would be allowed under HB 219.
The state budget agency found that enforcing such a law could cost $300,000 annually. The estimate includes costs for new or prolonged incarcerations and at least two additional state staffers to keep tabs on sex offenders. ..Source.. by ALISON NOON
August 24, 2014
Under the radar: More than half of all sex offenders on the registry still lack a tier level
Convicted serial rapist __ has been called the worst of the worst.
But if you had looked him up on Montana's Sexual or Violent Offender Registry prior to his July sentencing, he would've looked like any other sex offender.
Pinned to a map of Montana, a red dot among thousands, you would've seen his name, age, address, photo and the offense for which he had to register — a charge out of New Mexico, second degree criminal sexual penetration.
But there was one piece of information you wouldn't have been able to see: his tier designation.
That's because he didn't have one.
In Montana, sex offenders are supposed to receive a 1, 2 or 3 tier designation, effectively telling the public how dangerous they are. An offender's designation also affects how they're supervised on the registry. It affects how often they have to check in and verify their address, how long they have to register and the amount of information that's made available to the public.
But that rule has become the exception.
A Gazette examination found that more than half of all sex offenders on the registry didn't have a tier level in August, May and June.
And when it comes to the registry, by default, these undesignated offenders are being held to the same standards of registration as Level 1 offenders, the state's lowest level.
Regardless of how dangerous a sex offender might be, that means:
- They only have to check in with local law enforcement once a year, compared to Level 2 offenders who are required to check in twice a year and Level 3 offenders who are required to check in four times a year.
- They can petition to remove themselves from the registry after 10 years, compared to a 25-year requirement for Level 2 offenders and lifetime requirement for Level 3's.
- And the amount of their information disseminated to the public is limited. It doesn't include things like license plate numbers, vehicle descriptions or special conditions imposed on the offender by the court for public safety, which are required of higher-level offenders.
Montana’s 3-tier system
The Department of Corrections or the sentencing court designates a tier level that assesses the risk each offender poses for committing similar offenses in the future:
- Level 1 Sexual Offenders: the risk of a repeat sexual offense is low
- Level 2 Sexual Offenders: the risk of a repeat sexual offense is moderate
- Level 3 Sexual Offenders: the risk of a repeat sexual offense is high, there is a threat to public safety, and an evaluator believes the offender is a sexually violent predator
If an offender was convicted in federal court or in another state and the offense requires registration in Montana, the Registration Unit may use the risk level designation assigned by that state or the federal government.
Some sexual offenders may not have a tier-level designation. Since the tier-level system was not enacted in Montana until 1997, sexual offenders sentenced prior to that year may not have a tier level. Sexual offenders may not have a tier level designation if:
- they were incarcerated prior to 1997
- they were not incarcerated after 1997
- the sentencing judge did not assign them a tier level
April 19, 2013
Montana sex offender registry sees changes
4-19-2013 Montana:
A new bill has been signed into law in Montana allowing prosecutors to file a petition in district court designating sex offenders.
Montana currently has over 2,200 registered sex offenders, and about 1,400 of those aren't designated in a tier level because their convictions came before the registry law.
However, under House Bill 335, which Governor Steve Bullock signed last Friday, district court judges can now go back in and give them a rating.
"Level one is a lower risk, level two is a moderate risk, and level three is a more sexually, a predator. And we look at psycho-sexual evaluations that are prepared by mental health professionals who have experience in that area, and then we look also at other factors that are presented to us at sentencing. And the judge makes the determination of what that level designation will be." said District Court Judge Kathy Seeley of Helena.
The idea behind the law is to know where the most violent sex offenders are living. The new law is designed to give prosecutors and law enforcement the tools they need to keep our communities safe. ..Source.. by Marnee Banks - MTN News
April 2, 2013
State Sex Offender Registry SB 213 Passed Both the Senate and the House
This is nonsense if a person was registered in the previous state, then their DNA was taken and sent to the National DNA data base (CODIS). All Montana needs to do is run their unsolved cases against CODIS. What we see here is, a lawmaker making a name for himself at taxpayers expense.4-2-2013 Montana:
Attorney General Tim Fox joined Governor Steve Bullock yesterday as he signed legislation making Montana a safer place to live.
SB 213, introduced at the request of Attorney General Fox, closes a loophole in current Montana law when it comes to convicted sex offenders -felons who often pose a continued risk to society. Previously, when a sexual or violent offender from another state was released from supervision, that offender was able to move to Montana and was required to register here as a sexual or violent offender. However, that offender did not have to provide a DNA sample to be entered into the Montana state DNA database. The gap in the law meant that some unsolved cases may have gone unsolved. Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and Wisconsin were the only four states in the nation that still did not have the requirement.
Attorney General Fox said, “This new legislation gets Montana in synch with the laws of most other states, and may lead law enforcement and prosecutors to criminals who should be in prison for unsolved crimes. It also prevents them from committing future harm against our children or other Montanans.” He added, “I want to thank Governor Bullock for his commitment to keeping Montana’s families safe, Senator Cliff Larsen for carrying this important legislation on behalf of our office, and the Montana Legislature for its unanimous support of the bill.”
The new law goes into effect on October 1, 2013. ..Source.. by Web.com
February 10, 2013
Bill would grant courts ability to designate sex offenders
Clearly explains whats wrong with the Adam Walsh Act2-10-2013 Montana:
The Montana State Legislature's House Judiciary Committee heard a bill that would give district courts authority to rank sex offenders by likelihood of committing another offense.
The state already requires that registered sex offenders to be designated as a tier 1, 2, or 3 offender. But not every sex offender in the state has a designated tier. Specifically those convicted before 1997, or out of state. House Bill 335 would allow district courts to assign tiers to these offenders.
"In Montana, a therapist looks at this offender and they use statistical tools to tell whether this person is likely to reoffend or not. Those statistical tools are not based on the type of offense that you've committed," says State Prosecutor Ole Olsen of the Montana Attorney General's Office. " It's based on your comparison, what your history is like, what your psychological makeup is like compared to other populations."
No one spoke in opposition of the bill. ..Source.. by KECI Staff
February 8, 2013
Montana's HB 335 would provide authority to designate sex offenders
2-8-2013 Montana:
The House Judiciary Committee heard a bill today that would give district courts authority to designate sex offenders by their likelihood of committing another offense.
In Montana, registered sex offenders are supposed to be designated as a tier level 1, 2, or 3 offender. This tier designation informs the public of the perceived risk of the offender to commit another sexual offense, with level 1 being the lowest and level 3 being the highest. But not every sex offender that lives in the state, has a designated tier.
Sex offenders convicted before 1997 or outside state lines, may not have been assigned a tier level. House Bill 335 would make it so that district courts could assign tiers to these offenders. Prosecutor Ole Olsen of the Montana Attorney General's Office, spoke in favor of House Bill 335 today.
Olson says, "In Montana, a therapist looks at this offender and they use statistical tools to tell whether this person is likely to reoffend or not. Those statistical tools are not based on the type of offense that you've committed. It's based on your comparison, what your history is like, what your psychological makeup is like compared to other populations."
Bill sponsor Representative Jenny Eck says without a process for post-sentencing tier designation, there's no way to enforce upon an undesignated offender, requirements beyond those applied to a level one offender.
Eck says, "There are likely to be offenders in Montana that should be regulated under the more stringent requirements of level 2 or 3 designation that are operating under level 1 restrictions."
Eck says the bill addresses the issue of public safety.
Eck says, "Most of us would want to know if there were a tier 3 sex offender living down the street from us. It is very likely that some of the undesignated sex offenders on the Sexual and Violent Offenders Registry website are level 3 offenders but because they are undesignated, it is difficult for communities to know what degree of risk exists."
No one spoke in opposition of the bill. ..Source.. by Charlie Misra
March 25, 2012
Some sex offenders get registration violations dismissed
3-25-2012 Montana:
A Billings man sentenced to federal prison for failing to register as a sex offender recently had his conviction dismissed after federal court rulings clarified the law’s effective date.
Clifford W. Eagle, 53, who was convicted in September 2008 of failing to register as a sex offender, is among more than a dozen sex offenders in Montana whose convictions are being dismissed because of the issue.
Assistant Federal Defender Steve Babcock, who represented Eagle, said persons accused of violating the Sex Offenders Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) after the law was enacted in July 2006 but before its effective date of Aug. 1, 2008, are having their convictions dismissed.
The dismissals follow a series of rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the interim period between the law’s enactment and effective dates. The 9th Circuit ruled that the law did not become effective against convicted sex offenders until Aug. 1, 2008.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Montana and the Federal Defenders of Montana recently have filed joint motions seeking to vacate the convictions and sentences in 14 cases, Babcock said.
Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull “got the ball rolling” to correct the cases, Babcock said. And the government also responded quickly, acting “in an unbelievably prompt manner,” he added.
In a Feb. 24 order, Cebull said he had received a list from Assistant U.S. Attorney Marcia Hurd, who prosecutes most of the cases, and the federal defenders of 14 defendants, including Eagle, who had been erroneously convicted. The judge directed the attorneys to file joint requests to vacate the judgments.
Cebull ordered Eagle released March 3 and the next day, Eagle was released from a federal prison in Tucson, Ariz.
Eagle was indicted in April 2008 for traveling to Billings two months earlier and failing to register as a sex offender. Babcock and Hurd said in their motion that Eagle was innocent because failing to register was not yet a crime.
Eagle was convicted in Oklahoma in 2003 of rape involving a child and was sentenced to 10 years in prison with five years suspended, court records said. He was released in 2007, designated an aggravated sex offender and required to register.
Eagle was registering daily with the Oklahoma City Police Department because, as a homeless person, he had a daily registration requirement. Eagle eventually moved to Montana, registered to live at the Billings Rescue Mission in February 2008 to receive help but failed to register with law enforcement as a sex offender, court records said.
Billings police encountered Eagle in February 2008 and learned in a routine warrants check that Eagle was a convicted sex offender. The officers advised Eagle he needed to register. A month later, officers arrested Eagle on an Oklahoma warrant for violating probation.
Eagle pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Billings in September 2008 to failing to register, and Cebull sentenced him to 30 months in prison.
The judge then revoked Eagle’s supervised release in August 2010, about three months after he was let out of prison, for violations and sent him back to prison for two years.
The judge recommended the Tucson prison because it has a sex offender treatment program, court records said.
Eagle served another 19 months before being released this month. In all, Eagle was incarcerated for about three years and eight months.
Although his conviction has been dismissed, Eagle, who is living as a transient in Billings, still has to register as sex offender, Babcock said.
“The cases did not overrule SORNA and make SORNA ineffective,” he said. While the law has generated an enormous amount of litigation, it remains in effect, he said. ..Source.. by CLAIR JOHNSON
March 20, 2012
Out from under the bridge
3-20-2012 Montana:
Advocates working to curb sex offender homelessness
Cars drive several feet above the registered addresses of sex offenders in Missoula every day.
Of Missoula County’s 649 registered sexual and violent offenders, four are registered under bridges — two under Orange Street and two under Reserve Street.
Another two live at the Super Wal-Mart. Two more live on the Kim Williams Trail. An additional 10 are registered as “transient” and don’t have addresses.
“That’s not really what the people intended when they said they wanted to have a sex registry,” said state Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, who’s working on legislation to provide housing for sex offenders. “It’s the right thing to do to ensure that a sex offender on probation succeeds, not just for the safety of the community, but for the safety of themselves.”
When offenders get discharged from prison, they often struggle to find housing, said Hill. Without adequate support, they can once again fall through the cracks, putting them at a higher risk of reoffending and costing the community thousands of dollars.
Hill isn’t alone in her mission to get sex offenders off the streets. Others in Missoula also see problems with the current situation.
Sue Wilkins, executive director of Missoula Correctional Services, said money can be a major obstacle in securing housing.
“A large percentage of (sex offenders) are single and need to find an apartment like anyone else,” she said. “A lot of them have low-income jobs, so money is a big piece of trying to find a place.”
Missoula Correctional Services addresses housing affordability for offenders by teaching inmates budgeting skills that emphasize saving, Wilkins said. The nonprofit also works with offenders to prepare them for job interviews and requires those in its pre-release program to secure jobs before they can be discharged.
But for many offenders, money’s only half the challenge. Some landlords refuse to rent to people with a criminal background, said Eran Fowler Pehan, executive director of the Poverello Center.
“Missoula’s rental vacancy is so low, and the market is so competitive,” she said. “Landlords don’t have to rent to people with criminal backgrounds. They can choose other tenants, and they often do.”
Beki Hartmann, director of the Associated Students of the University of Montana’s Off-Campus Renter Center, has had several students who are also sex offenders walk into her office for advice.
“I think that when they come here and talk to me, they’ve been looking for quite a while and keep getting rejected,” she said. “The only resource I can give them is to tell them that about half the properties in Missoula are managed by private landlords, and many private landlords do not do background checks or credit checks.”
Sex offenders who struggle to find housing can stay at the Poverello Center if they are Level 1 and 2 offenders — those with a low to moderate chance of reoffending. Pehan said Level 3 offenders — those the state deems at a high risk of reoffending — struggle the most. They cannot access many support services in Missoula, including those the Poverello Center offers such as advocacy and help with housing applications.
“What will work for Missoula will really depend on what our community wants,” Pehan said.
Community members have a variety of ideas. Hill proposed a bill in the Montana House last year that encouraged the Department of Corrections and local entities to develop housing options for sex offenders. The bill passed the House but failed in its final reading in the Senate.
Hill is running for re-election and plans to reintroduce the legislation. She expects it to pass both chambers.
She added that she sees permanent supportive housing as a viable solution. This could consist of a facility resembling Missoula’s Valor House, which has 17 units available for veterans who were previously homeless, she said.
But others aren’t sure a housing complex is the best option.
“Do you congregate all these people in one location?” asked Wilkins. “I don’t know that that’s so healthy. I also don’t know that there would be any neighborhood that would feel that was a good idea.”
Wilkins said she doesn’t know the best solution. But she’d like to see the community explore a plan that would temporarily fund the housing of someone who would otherwise be homeless. Once the recipient can afford rent, the subsidy would help another person. That way, offenders could stay living in the same location and not have to give up their home to the next participant in the program.
One funding option lies in the state’s general budget, said Andrea Davis, executive director of Homeword, a Missoula nonprofit that promotes affordable housing. There’s a line item in the budget for a housing trust fund, but it’s currently unfunded.
If the state decided to make housing for sex offenders a priority, legislators could allocate money to the trust fund to support something like permanent supportive housing, Davis said.
“We could do that, which is the beauty of having our own money without having to use federal money,” she said.
The federal government offers several programs that subsidize housing for low-income individuals. But Davis said these are competitive, and applicants with criminal records are often at a disadvantage.
Others in Missoula are working on a long-term plan to find a lasting answer. Councilman Jason Wiener and about 10 other community members have spent the past year talking to Missoulians and others across the state and country to develop a strategy to combat homelessness. He said the group will present a draft of Missoula’s 10-year plan in the middle of the year.
One idea is to collect a pool of money that landowners can draw from to supplement part of the initial payments required when a person rents a house. That would reduce the burden many homeless people face when they have to put down first and last months’ rent in addition to a security deposit, he said. Landowners would have to voluntarily contribute to the pool to use it.
Wiener added that this plan would work if landowners were willing to accept people such as sex offenders without preconditions. But he knows that idea might not receive much support.
“It’s pretty hard to make the case that you’re going to house everybody without the government being the housing partner of last resort,” he said. ..Source.. by amy.sisk@umontana.edu
January 8, 2012
Research varies on rate of false rape reports
1-8-2012 Montana:
When a University of Montana student went to the Missoula Police Department this fall to report that another student had sexually assaulted her in his off-campus apartment, she said an officer asked whether she had a boyfriend.
Why, she wondered, did he need to know that?
Police Chief Mark Muir discussed the question with her when she complained about the way her case was handled.
"The officer very untactfully, rather than explain it, said, ‘We do it because sometimes women make false reports to protect themselves with respect to their boyfriends,' " Muir said.
Although the police chief characterized that response as "really crappy" (he said the officer later was "counseled"), he said there are legitimate reasons to ask. The response could, for instance, explain the results of DNA tests.
Muir said the department considers each sexual assault report on its individual merits. "We take every report understanding that it's possible the report is being made to law enforcement for reasons that are not clear to us," he said.
When Muir visited in person with that woman and another who'd filed a sexual assault complaint, "we had a discussion here in my office about the fact that there is false reporting that does take place," he said. "There are studies that have shown numbers are closer to 40 to 50 percent."
Later he emailed the woman a 2009 article about those studies, two of which used polygraph tests. One of those examined 1,218 reports of rape on Air Force bases in the 1980s and subjected 546 of those making allegations in "unresolved" cases to polygraphs.
"Twenty seven percent of these complainants admitted they had fabricated their accusations just before taking the polygraph or right after they failed the test," the Forensic Examiner article said. That study combined the finding with other results to come up with a false accusation rate of 45 percent.
That's quite a bit higher than the FBI "unfounded" rate of 8 percent in the 1990s, the article noted.
Last month, the journal Violence Against Women ran a report on the same subject, titled "False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis in Ten Years of Reported Cases."
That case examined seven studies between 1977 and 2006 that found false reporting rates of 2.1 percent to 10.9 percent.
It also took sharp exception to studies that offered or actually used polygraphs on alleged rape victims, calling it "a procedure that is now widely viewed as an intimidation tactic that frequently persuades already hesitant rape victims to drop out of the criminal justice process."
"This procedure is so frowned upon that the 2005 reauthorization for the Violence Against Women Act stipulates that any state in which agencies use the polygraph on sexual assault victims jeopardizes its eligibility for certain grants, and a number of states have passed laws prohibiting the use of the polygraph to determine whether charges should be filed in a sexual assault case."
The study noted varying and confusing definitions of "false." The International Association of Chiefs of Police warned in 2005 that a "false" designation "should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled ‘unsubtantiated.' "
After reviewing previous studies, the report examined 136 sexual assault cases filed over 10 years at a university in the northeastern United States, finding a 5.9 percent false report rate.
"It is notable that in general, the greater the scrutiny applied to police classifications, the lower the rate of false reporting detected," it said. "Cumulatively, these findings contradict the still widely promulgated stereotype that false rape allegations are a common occurrence."
Eilis O'Herlily, director of the Student Assault Resource Center at the University of Montana, said the research she's seen cites a "tiny, tiny fraction of false reports when compared with the number of incidents that go unreported."
That's because there are still many misconceptions about what constitutes rape, she said.
"A lot of people don't come forward because they don't know that what happens to them is rape," she said. "Maybe they knew the person. Maybe they went on a date with the person. They think people won't believe them."
Both SARC and First Step, a program for child and adult sexual assault victims, do not require victims to make police reports - or even to give their names. A state-funded program pays for both agencies to provide rape kits to victims, and then pays for storage for up to a year, which can give a victim time to decide whether to seek prosecution. ..Source.. by GWEN FLORIO of the Missoulian
December 28, 2011
'Speeding train' interrogations can fuel false confessions
12-28-2011 Montana:
HELENA, Mont. (USA TODAY) — On Dec. 7, a Montana judge released confessed murderer Barry Beach after ruling that new evidence in his case was "credible" and that he deserved a new trial.
Beach, 49, served 28 years of a 100-year prison sentence for the 1979 murder of high school classmate Kim Nees, a crime he confessed to but has since maintained he didn't commit.
Two days after Beach was freed, authorities in Illinois and New York dealt with two cases of confessions that defendants later said were coerced.
The question at the heart of each of these cases — and dozens like them across the country — is: "Why would someone confess to a crime they didn't commit?"
Until recently, the idea that someone would falsely admit to a murder or a rape that they didn't commit was considered preposterous, says former Washington, D.C., homicide detective Jim Trainum.
"I always ask people, 'Why would somebody ever confess to a crime they didn't do?' " Trainum says. "What is it we do in that interrogation room that convinces you that it is in your best interest to admit to something that could lead you to the death chamber?"
Trainum was a police officer for 27 years, 17 of them as a homicide detective. Now retired, Trainum serves as a consultant on cold cases and wrongful convictions where he specializes in false confessions.
He says he obtained his first false confession from a suspect just one year into his tenure as a homicide detective.
Trainum says he and his fellow investigators repeatedly ignored evidence that pointed away from the suspect who confessed.
"It's like you're on this speeding train going down the track and it's extremely difficult to get that train to stop," Trainum says. "While you're on that train, you might be getting other leads coming in, other clues about the killer, but because we're so fixated on the suspect, often times those clues go undocumented."
Steven Drizin, a clinical law professor at Northwestern University School of Law and the legal director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, studied more than 250 cases of proven false confessions. Nearly all false confessions start with the "misclassification error," Drizin says.
"When the police officer enters the interrogation room, they've already presumed that the suspect is guilty based on evidence that has been gathered in the course of the investigation. Often times, it's based on little more than a hunch," Drizin says.
The next error investigators often make is what Drizin calls the "coercion error." It starts when an interrogator begins accusing the suspect of committing the crime.
"Where these interrogations often go awry is when police begin to make implied or direct threats," Drizin says. "They might tell the suspect that a confession will bring leniency or less time in prison. Sometimes they tell a suspect that a conviction is going to bring an extremely harsh consequence, such as the death penalty, or long sentences. Sometimes suspects are told they're going to get raped in prison."
Trainum says police investigators are trained to convince a suspect that the short-term benefit of a confession outweighs the long-term consequences that it might bring.
The third error interrogators often commit, Drizin says, is when interrogators knowingly or unknowingly provide the suspect with key details of the crime.
University of Virginia law professor Brandon Garrett, author of the 2011 book Convicting the Innocent, reviewed 250 cases of people who were exonerated by DNA evidence.
Garrett found that suspects confessed in detail to crimes they didn't commit in 40 of those cases.
None of the interrogations in those cases was recorded in its entirety, Garrett says.
"In cases where the entire interrogation is recorded, it is a lot easier to find out" if interrogators have provided suspects with key details of the crime, Garrett says.
According to Garrett's study, all but two of the 40 false confessions involved such disclosures.
While police and prosecutors told courts and juries that the suspects provided details that only the actual criminal would know, Garrett found that the police investigators divulged those details during the interrogation process.
All three experts agree that false confessions start with improper training. It is not a police or prosecutorial misconduct problem, they say.
"That's what makes these cases so terrifying," Garrett says. "These people are innocent, and yet the cases against them appear to be very strong because what happened in the interrogation room was not documented."
Drizin, Garrett and Trainum say that complete video recordings of police interrogations would help reduce or eliminate wrongful convictions based on false confessions.
"The last thing most law enforcement officers want to do is put an innocent person behind bars," Drizin said. ...Source... by John S. Adams
December 8, 2011
Lawyer Wants Montana Sex Offenders to Know: I’m Not the Person Writing You Critical Letters
12-8-2011 Montana:
A Montana lawyer thinks someone with a personal vendetta against her is responsible for letters being sent to registered sex offenders that contain her home address and phone number.
The letters criticizing the sex offenders bear the signature of workers compensation lawyer Leslae Dalpiaz, report NBC Montana and the Missoulian. "I am not sending these letters," Dalpiaz told NBC Montana. "I don't mean any ill will to the recipients."
The letters warn the sex offenders that they could be followed and checked for compliance with their probation. "Considering your record, you have no one to blame but yourself for your deviant behavior,” one letter read.
Dalpiaz says she doesn’t represent sex offenders, and she doesn’t even practice criminal law. She is working with police in an effort to find out who is responsible. "I am clueless as to who this would be," Dalpiaz told the Missoulian. "It requires someone with a fairly diabolical mind, but fairly savvy." ..Source.. by Debra Cassens Weiss
November 9, 2011
Mental health worker who reported child porn fired
11-9-2011 Montana:
MISSOULA, Mont. — An employee of a Missoula mental health center who reported a client's computer search for child pornography was fired after reporting him to police.
The client, John Gribble, is charged with sexually abusing a child after a DVD with photos of nude children was found at his house.
The Missoulian reported Wednesday that an employee of Three Rivers Mental Health Solutions contacted police about Gribble on Oct. 17.
The employee first told her supervisors, who told her not to report Gribble. Three Rivers administrator Shea Hennelly says reports that break medical confidentiality must include the names and address of the child involved and the extent of the child's injuries.
"In order to provide mental health services, we can't engage in dual roles. We're not allowed to go to police" unless actual child abuse is observed, Hennelly told The Missoulian. "She didn't witness someone abusing a child. What this woman reported to this office was she saw the tab of Web browsers that said teenage girls. That's a lot different."
The employee was concerned about two young girls that Gribble babysat, but she did not know their names. ..Source.. by MSNBC
July 1, 2011
1 of 4 Montana sex offender addresses unverified
Yup, you can rely on what the State Publishes, NOT!7-1-2011 Montana:
HELENA - The addresses for one out of every four offenders in Montana's sexual and violent offender registry are unverified and possibly unreliable, casting doubt on the credibility of the registry used by everyone from concerned parents checking out new neighbors to house hunters in search of a safe neighborhood.
A new audit found that 26 percent of the offenders in the state's database have not returned a required address verification letter even though not doing so puts them at risk of going back to prison. The report found that the state never notified members of the public or local police checking the list that many of the addresses are not verified.
The backers of the advocacy group that pushed Congress to adopt Megan's Law in the mid-1990s, which requires states to make information on sex offenders available to the public, said the biggest problem all along with the registries has been maintaining accurate data.
Most states notify the public with websites like Montana uses, and many have struggled over the years to keep the information current, said Maureen Kanka, whose daughter Megan was killed in 1994 by a sex offender - a crime that helped launch the push for public registries.
"Unfortunately if law enforcement drops the ball you are going to run into problems like this. That is one of the biggest problems, the lack of following through," said Kanka. "That is probably the most common problem they have with the registries is making sure they are kept up to date. That is not unheard of."
Montana officials pointed out that an unverified address in its system does not necessarily mean the offender has moved elsewhere and could be a threat to unsuspecting neighbors. The Montana Department of Justice, which tracks roughly 5,000 offenders in the state, said some have simply failed to return the address verification letter required by law.
In nearly a third of the cases, the offenders are back in jail and the managers of the database were never notified. And the auditors found seven cases where dead offenders were still listed as active in the registry.
"When members of the public access the Web site or law enforcement queries data, thy will not be aware of the offender's failure to verify their registration," the auditors wrote in a new report. "Therefore, they may not be aware of the offender's actual location."
But in many instances, the legislative audit revealed, authorities aren't sure where the offenders are living.
The Department of Justice said that it is making some changes.
The agency plans to flag unverified offenders so those looking at the website are aware of the situation. Additionally, it plans to send local police frequent reports on unverified offenders so officers can check on unverified offenders, and track them down in need be.
Auditors reported that agency managers initially resisted flagging unverified offenders because it "would lead the public and law enforcement to question the data in the registry since such a large number have not verified their registration."
Mike Batista, a Department of Justice administrator, said the improvements will be made. But overall, he said "by and large" the public can rely on the website that provides a map of offender locations.
"I think they can rely on a lot of the information," Batista said. "It's a challenging program in terms of being able to constantly know on any given day where an offender resides."
Kanka said the public should help police, noting it is impossible for authorities to constantly monitor the offenders.
"There is nothing wrong with being diligent and being watchful and making police aware if you notice an offender has moved and is not living where they are supposed to anymore," Kanka said. "The registries are only as good as what we put into them." ..Source.. by Billings Gazette
June 27, 2011
Bozeman tries to cope with registered sexual offender problem
Lets just assume the neighbor did ogle the kids. Dratz claims it went on for a YEAR, now is there a lick of truth to that? What person, esp. a Teacher in this day and age, would not do something about a neighbor if the neighbor was ogling kids in her yard. Why did she not call the police?6-27-2011 Montana:
Bozeman preschool teacher Constance Dratz didn't realize for a year that the neighbor she claims had ogled her bathing-suit-clad students was a sex offender.
The neighbor, David John Woodfin, had been sentenced to 10 years in a Utah state prison for sexually abusing a child - not the type of person Dratz wanted anywhere near her young students.
And as the law now reads, she could do little about it.
State and federal law requires sexual offenders to register with the state and let authorities know where they are living. That information is published online so people can see if sexual offenders live in their neighborhoods.
Now, Dratz wants a city ordinance on the books that would bar sexual offenders from living near schools.
But as states and cities in the U.S. further restrict sexual offenders, law enforcement and rehabilitation advocates are split on whether society wins or loses.
Local prosecutors and law enforcement agents say the registry is a useful tool for keeping kids safe from people who have shown a tendency to sexually offend.
However, statistics indicate released offenders, particularly those who undergo therapy, are unlikely to commit another sexual crime.
Advocates for rehabilitated offenders contend the registry is an additional sentence that castigates ex-convicts who have served their time and makes it hard for them to re-enter society after leaving prison.
And there are questions about how many residency restrictions states and cities can force upon sexual offenders before those offenders decide it's better to go underground.
In Woodfin's case, he failed to register with authorities until this spring, way past the time allowed by law.
Instead, he moved out of the apartment near the preschool earlier this month, and now his whereabouts are unknown.
They're not all pedophiles
Not all sexual offenders are the same or should be treated similarly, said Gallatin County Attorney Marty Lambert.
"People need to recognize that sexual intercourse without consent of an 18-year-old with a 15-year-old that, in every other sense of the word, was consensual" is not the same as an adult sexually abusing a child, he said. "The only thing making the (teen's crime) illegal is the statute saying that a person of the age of 15 cannot give consent."
It should be seen entirely differently than a pedophile's crime, which "isn't just a teenage dalliance," Lambert said.
According to state Department of Corrections statistics, pedophiles represent less than 4 percent of the sexual offender population in Montana.
Of 91 sexual offenders on Gallatin County's registry, four are considered to have a high risk to re-offend. Yet only one of those four committed a crime against a child.
Sexual crimes cover a wide spectrum of charges, from Peeping Tom and indecent exposure to raping a child. Yet all of the offenders are mandated to register and are condemned to the sexual offender list.
Level three sex offenders - offenders that judges consider the most likely to re-offend - are required to register for life. Level two offenders must register for 25 years and level ones, viewed as the lowest risk to society, for 10 years.
After fulfilling the registry period and spending a decade or more in the community, offenders may petition a judge to remove the requirement. But granting those requests are not popular decisions for elected judges to make.
The chicken or egg theory
About 34 percent of Montana's current prisoners were convicted of sexual crimes, according to statistics compiled by Blair Hopkins, a therapist who treats sexual offenders in the state prison. Of those, more than 90 percent are undergoing or are waiting to begin intensive sexual offender treatment.
Of released sexual offenders who have completed Montana's prison-based therapy program, about 2 percent committed another sexual crime, according to Hopkins' statistics. The national average for untreated offenders is about 20 percent.
Public safety officials tout registration as a means of keeping communities safe. But it isn't the solution, a Bozeman sexual offender therapist said.
"Registration gives people a false sense of security because (those registered) are not the ones who are offending," said Fred Lemons, who initiated the prison-based treatment program in 1980. "Ninety percent of the time it's a family member, acquaintance or neighbor - someone with an established relationship" with the victim.
The registry "creates a false sense of security and a false sense of fear and targets family members of offenders as well," he said. "I think the idea is good, but I think if we limited it to high-risk offenders, then it's going to be more helpful."
The register does seem to have one definite effect.
Statistics show that 25 percent of treated offenders and 49 percent of untreated offenders land back in prison - often for not registering as a sexual offender or another parole violation.
But police and prosecutors maintain the registry is a good way to keep tabs on the most reviled of offenders.
"You could argue that offenders don't re-offend because people are watching them," Lambert said. "Isn't it better that we know where they are and that they are following their treatment, rather than not have any supervisory authority over them?"
The registry is important, Bozeman Police Lt. Rich McLane agreed.
"It lets everyone know this is someone who did something wrong," he said. "It lets the public know that we know where they're at and it will keep a large percentage of offenders honest because they know they're being watched, and they don't want to go back to prison.
"If David Woodfin (Dratz's neighbor) was truly trying to live an honest life and had registered, he would have been able to do anything any other citizen of Bozeman could do," McLane said.
Yet even those tasked with upholding the law recognize the registry's shortcomings.
"It would not be in the best interest of the public and it would be unsafe and irresponsible to think the sexual offender registry is going to keep everyone safe," McLane said. "Because they all had to offend first before they were registered."
"It's kind of like the chicken and the egg theory," said Robert Vanuka, the Bozeman police detective who oversees the city's registry. "Which came first? They're on the registry (now), but they weren't on the registry when they committed the crime."
And many sexual crimes go unreported, victim advocates say.
Victims blame themselves or are too ashamed to report the crime. They don't want to live through the trauma of medical examinations, police questioning and reliving the incident through court testimony. Some may be too young to comprehend that what happened to them is a crime.
McLane and Vanuka said educating children and reporting suspicious activity is the key to preventing the crimes.
If a sexual crime is suspected, parents need to stress to children it's not their fault, Vanuka said. Parents need to foster an environment that builds trust and communication.
"If something just doesn't seem right or someone sees something suspicious, we want them to call us," McLane added.
Dratz's neighbor
Had Woodfin registered after he had moved into his apartment at 1715 W. Kagy Blvd., next to Dratz's Yellowstone Montessori Academy, there may not have been a $75,000 warrant issued for his arrest.
But he didn't register within the 10 days mandated by law. Now he's on the lam.
Woodfin, convicted in Utah in 1994 of two counts of sexually abusing a child, spent 10 years in prison and successfully completed his sentence. But he was still required to register as a sexual offender when he moved to Bozeman last summer. He failed to do so until this spring.
Shortly after police told Woodfin he needed to register, he left Bozeman, possibly the state.
If, as Dratz contends, Woodfin was eyeing her young students, a state law that takes effect in October could resolve the issue.
The law allows police to charge someone previously convicted of a sexual crime with predatory loitering if they dawdle near schools, parks, playgrounds and similar places.
Despite the new statute, Dratz said she intends to pursue a law restricting where sexual offenders can live.
If Bozeman commissioners pass such an ordinance, it will be the first of its kind in Montana.
Sending them underground
But laws such as the one Dratz proposes are not the cure-all many hope for and, in fact, often end up doing more harm than good, authorities said.
Miami's restrictive laws, for example, leave few legal places for sexual offenders to live, relegating more than 70 of them to live in a makeshift tent city beneath a Biscayne Bay bridge.
Placing further restrictions on offenders could cause many to disregard the registry law, McLane said.
"It will drive them underground," he said. "It will make them elude the registration requirement. I don't believe it's the complete solution."
Save for a handful of pedophiles, Lemons said he is concerned that a broad-based law would shackle many of his clients.
"I think you can't put a blanket on every sex offender," he said. "But I would be worried if I had a high-level, predatory-type pedophile living next door to a school. The problem is when you throw out that net and just use the term ‘sex offender' and look at them as all the same. I think you're going to put requirements on people who don't need that."
Even Dratz acknowledges the failings of a potential law.
A 2,000-foot limit around schools would make it impossible for offenders to find a place to live in Bozeman, she said. It would force them to move outside the city, thereby making it difficult for law enforcement to keep track of them.
But that doesn't mean she's not going to pursue it.
"When a sexual offense is committed, an offender pays the price to the society but not to the victim," Dratz said. "The harm to the victim is lifelong and often extends to her family and children."
A new law is not about "just waking up a sexual offender and saying move out," she said. "It's saying, ‘Yoo hoo, women are just not going to put up with this anymore in our society. It's causing too much generational and societal harm.'"
Dratz said she'll probably seek a 500-foot limit but, like police, stresses that education is critical.
"I want more families to be aware of this issue and to see more education," she said. "Children need to be trained, and parents need to know how to talk with their children about it."
Dratz says she plans to organize classes for parents.
Meanwhile, Bozeman commissioners tasked City Attorney Greg Sullivan with researching the issue with the possibility of drafting an ordinance. ..Source.. by Jodi Hausen
Given the volatile nature of the subject, that won't be easy, Lambert said.
"It's an emotional issue that draws lots of passion," he said. "But when people consider how to address it, it needs to be done calmly and dispassionately."
June 6, 2011
Montana Tribes must track sex offenders by end of July
6-6-2011 Montana:
The U.S. Marshals Service is working with Montana's tribes to ensure they meet a quickly-approaching July 26 federal deadline to establish their own sex offender tracking and registration programs.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act requires convicted sex offenders to register where they live, work and attend school at least once a year - or more depending on where they place within a three-tiered threat system - and within three days of moving across state or tribal lines.
Tribal authorities on Montana's reservations were given the choice of setting up their own registries or adopting those already in place within the state, and they chose to implement their own.
The Marshals Service has been helping the reservations get set up since 2007 with varying results and officials said they're on hand to help until the deadline.
"We're going to support them as best we can," said Marshal Darrell Bell, who has driven more than 8,000 miles in his pickup since being sworn in this January. "We've done a lot of traveling, but it's all been very positive and we've gone beyond, 'Hey, we're just coming here to arrest one of your tribal members.'"
The basic needs to set up a sex offender registry include hiring a compliance officer to check on and track registered offenders and a computer system for data entry.
The Fort Peck and Northern Cheyenne reservations have already set up their programs with the help of $59,022 and $91,454 federal grants, respectively, received in 2008.
Chief Deputy Marshal Rod Ostermiller said the Fort Peck program is a good example of how it can work because tribal authorities work closely with county, state and federal agencies.
The Crow Reservation near Billings is in the process of setting its system up while the Rocky Boy and Fort Belknap reservations have told marshals they'll have theirs ready for the deadline.
One reservation, the Blackfeet in northwestern Montana, has already said it will hand authority over to the Glacier County Sheriff's Office.
Ostermiller said a deputy has been assigned to each reservation to help facilitate the process and it's something his office is taking seriously.
There are 2,024 registered sex offenders in the state and 1,099 living in counties that contain at least a small portion of a reservation.
It should be noted, however, that 641 of those offenders live in Yellowstone and Missoula counties, which contain small parts of the Crow and Flathead reservations as well as Billings and Missoula, the state's two most populous cities.
Bell said that, in the past, some offenders on the run have been able to hide out on reservations because of the conflicting jurisdictions but that the Adam Walsh Act has given tribes and authorities the tools to work together.
"One of the biggest things is that they have the resources available to help, so we're trying to build a better relationship between our agency and theirs," Bell said.
He added that a strong victim advocate program also goes hand in hand with the registry because the help give victims a sense of security.
The Marshals Service will help if somebody goes on the run.
"If one person's out of compliance, it's one too many," Bell said. "It's frightening."
Much of the money over the last few years for the programs has come from federal grants. While those funds can be tough to come by due to money-saving measures at the federal level, officials say it's an important program.
"We feel that the task of basically monitoring registered sex offenders is too important to put a price tag on," Ostermiller said. ..Source.. by ZACH BENOIT






