Felons turn to 'pardon guy' to verify that they're rehabilitated

6-21-2014 California:

John Garbin hears from people who say they'll commit suicide if he doesn't help them.

Because of mistakes they made years ago — criminal mistakes — they can't get a job, move on with their lives, or escape their tarnished reputations, even though they've served their time.

"The calls we get are from people who are absolutely desperate," he said. "We do not live in a forgiving society."

Around the Los Angeles County public defender's office where he works, Garbin is known as "the pardon guy," although it might be more accurate to call him the "certificate of rehabilitation guy."

As a senior paralegal, he has spent the last two decades answering about 1,000 calls a year from felons, most of them drug offenders. He digs into each one's history to confirm they have gone straight for at least seven years (about 5% to 10% fall short). Then he works to persuade a judge to grant them a wider path back into society. His success rate is an astounding 95%.

Such a certificate doesn't erase the past, but it does restore some of the civil rights lost upon conviction. It also serves as an automatic application for a governor's pardon, the ultimate badge of rehabilitation.

With Gov. Jerry Brown granting clemency more often than his recent predecessors, more people are flocking to Garbin for a shot at their governor's pardon. For them, Garbin often seems their only hope.

"When you look at what goes through a courtroom, usually it's bad news," Garbin said. "Persons are sentenced to prison, they're placed on probation, they're losing civil rights, but [when] a certificate is granted, that's a happy time. I've actually sat in the courtroom and cried."

Garbin helps everyone he can, and as far as he knows, no one has gone so far as to commit suicide. But the emotional toll has made even him depressed at times.

At 77, he thinks about retirement, perhaps to a horse farm in Tuscany — he's vacationed in Italy 11 times, captivated by the slower pace. But he never knows when the next phone call might be someone like Kim De La Peza.

She is 44 and lives in Sacramento now. But De La Peza was only 4 when her mother was brutally murdered in their Montebello home.

Although her parents had divorced, she moved in with her father. But, she said, he didn't pay much attention to her: "I had no one there when I came home from school. I had no one there to give me a hug. I was very unhappy and very alone."

At 13, she started drinking and smoking marijuana, savoring the escape. Through high school, the combination included LSD. In her early 20s, she tried methamphetamine, and spent the next decade not just constantly high but also selling and manufacturing the drug. She found herself stuck in abusive relationships and around dangerous people.

"I tried several times to stop but the addiction was too great — everything, the money, the power, the drugs, everything. It had such a hold on my life," she said.

At 29, De La Peza was caught with a full meth lab in her car. In 2000, she was sentenced to four years in prison.

"From that moment, my life changed. That heavy weight of addiction and that blackness in my life was lifted from me," she said.

Two years later, she was paroled from the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla, determined to mend her life and pursue her childhood dream of becoming a veterinarian. Her potential quickly became apparent: She graduated summa cum laude from Cal Poly Pomona and got a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree from Michigan State University.

But getting a vet license and a job proved difficult with felonies on her record.

She talked to several private attorneys about getting a certificate of rehabilitation, but "none of them had ever done it before. One of them was going to charge $500 an hour.... Another said they'd charge me $1,500," she said.

One day, she called Garbin to see if he could recommend someone, only to find out that he could help her himself — and for free.

Garbin took on her case in early 2009. Like De La Peza, most of Garbin's clients want freedom from their criminal records.

"Everything is out in cyberspace today and everyone has access to records, and it's very frustrating ... having people call and say, 'What am I supposed to do? I can't get on with my life," he said.

Earlier this month, L.A. City Councilman Curren Price proposed that employers conduct background checks for job applicants only after a candidate has been found to be qualified. People who have been incarcerated have trouble reentering society, he said, because their convictions often disqualify them from jobs before they can even begin the application process.

As with all his clients, Garbin pulled rap sheets and conducted interviews to build a case for De La Peza's rehabilitation. He does more than just flip through court records. He acts as a kind of therapist, providing guidance to people who frequently can't find anyone else to listen. He becomes intimately familiar with their pasts; he hears their worst fears, their thwarted ambitions, their guilt.

Three or four months later, De La Peza was granted a certificate. She remembers crying in the courtroom. However, De La Peza's chances of landing a full pardon seemed slim in 2009; Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor, and over the 20 years that he, Gray Davis and Pete Wilson served only 29 pardons had been granted.

But then Brown took office in 2011, and has since granted more than 375 pardons.

Though Garbin has no control over who gets a pardon, he's still proud of the 41 he's gotten for clients under Brown; a copy of each pardon certificate is taped to a wall outside his office.

One is De La Peza's. She got a call with the news just before Christmas. Now she works as a veterinarian, and says she owes it all to Garbin.

"I don't know if that would've happened without him and his knowledge," she said.

But not everyone is as lucky as De La Peza.

So despite dreams of retirement, Garbin continues with his work. His phone still rings endlessly. People call feeling lost and upset. There are many he can't help. But he listens. ..Source.. by Soumya Karlamangla

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill calls for all child predators to register as sex offenders

3-15-2014 California:

Sexual predators who are granted rehabilitation certificates are not required to register as sex offenders. A bill passed by the Assembly Public Safety Committee would require all convicted child predators to register as sex offenders.

Currently 245 people in California could seek rehabilitation certifications and not have to register as sex offenders. One court case ruled that it was unequal treatment to allow a group of sex offenders to get rehabilitation certificates, and deny a similar group of offenders the same opportunity. Legislation sponsored by Assem. Eric Linder, R-Corona, would require adults convicted of sexual acts with a child under the age of 10 to seek a rehabilitation certificate and register as a sex offender.

Linder says a loophole in a 2006 Senate bill allows for adults that are convicted of sexual crimes with children under 10 to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation and his bill would address that.

"We wanted to make it very clear that the intent of this law is so that anybody does acts like this with children cannot be, cannot be apply for an exemption," Linder said.

Assembly Bill 1438 now moves to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for consideration. ..Source.. by CTNS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

State Assembly Bill Would Overturn Court Decision, Limit Eligibility to Apply for Certificate of Rehabilitation

1-8-2014 California:

A bill has been introduced in the California State Assembly that would, if passed overturn a recent court decision and further limit the number of registered citizens who are eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. That bill is AB 1438, which was introduced by Assembly Members Eric Linder (Republican, Riverside) on January 6.

The California Court of Appeals decided in the case, People v. Tirey, on November 15, 2013, that registered citizens convicted of Penal Code Section 288(a) are eligible to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court’s decision is based upon the equal protection clause of the California constitution. In its decision, the court noted a disparity in current law that allows those convicted of a more serious offense to apply for a certificate of rehabilitation.

“This bill must be stopped,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “If passed, it would further erode the opportunity of registered citizens who have paid their debt to society and do not pose a current danger to be removed from the sex offender registry.”

California RSOL is opposed to AB 1438 and will lobby in opposition to that bill in Sacramento on January 27 and 28. ..Source.. by CA-RSOL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender who tried to change name is sentenced

6-6-2013 Oregon:

The world has seen the last of Winter Rain Waters.

On Wednesday, the man who helped create that fake name in a failed attempt to escape his criminal past as a sex offender was sentenced in federal court in Eugene. But Michael Allen Snow wasn’t given any more time behind bars because he already has spent more than a year in jail awaiting the outcome of his case.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken imposed a strict set of conditions on Snow, including up to a year in a residential rehabilitation center to prepare him to re-enter society. Snow, 29, will remain under Aiken’s supervision for three years, reporting to her monthly to ensure he is obeying the court-imposed restrictions.

Those include a sex offender assessment, mental health treatment, blood tests to show whether he is taking prescribed medications, registration as a sex offender, and being barred from places where children congregate. Aiken said Snow can earn the chance to have the restrictions gradually loosened by showing he can comply.

“What you need, and what will make society the safest, is structure,” Aiken told Snow.

Aiken crafted an unusual sentence to deal with an unusual case. Snow, who has past convictions for rape and sodomy, admitted helping concoct and carry out a plan with a Eugene midwife to submit false birth records in order to get a new birth certificate, driver’s license and other documents in the name of Winter Rain Waters.

Snow and midwife Willy Whitebird, the mother of Snow’s then-girlfriend, cooked up a story about how the “parents” of “Waters” were counterculture types who lived “off the grid” and did not believe in registering the birth with authorities. According to court documents, Snow thought Eugene was about the only place the plan would work because “there are a ton of hippies around here.”

As Waters, Snow wouldn’t have a criminal record and wouldn’t have to register as a sex offender, a requirement for most people convicted of sex crimes. The plan almost succeeded, but when he had his picture taken for a driver’s license as Waters, facial recognition software caught the resemblance to Snow and the plan unraveled.

The government asked for a two-year sentence, the most that prosecutors could seek under the terms of a plea agreement and federal sentencing guidelines. But because he already has served 13 months in the Lane County Jail since his arrest and because he would likely qualify for time off for good behavior, Snow probably would not have gone to prison and instead would have been sent to a “halfway” or recovery house for six months and then released.

Aiken said that by placing him under court supervision, she can better ensure not only that Snow remains law-abiding but that he also receives the treatment he needs. Snow has a form of bipolar disorder and another syndrome that causes him to experience delusions of grandeur, but both are well-controlled as long as he takes prescribed medication, Snow said.

Aiken said prisons are ill-equipped to deal with mental health problems and said society would be better served with better access to robust community mental health programs.

“We cannot use the jails as our mental health facilities,” she said.

Aiken noted that Snow was convicted of rape when he was 16 and that the victim was at least two years younger than him. He was initially sent to a juvenile facility and suffered “terrible abuse,” Aiken said.

After serving about eight years in custody, Snow was released in late 2009. About six months later he began the scheme to become Winter Rain Waters, only to be caught in early 2012.

Whitebird, the midwife, pleaded guilty late last year to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and was sentenced to five years of probation and 250 hours of community service. She also had to give up her nursing license. ..Source.. by Greg Bolt

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CO- Colorado's prison system structured to promote failure

8-12-2009 Colorado:

Mike peers from beneath the sackcloth he uses as a blanket, watching coldly as the other shelter residents ready themselves for sleep. The room is lined with beds and smells of body odor and unwashed clothes. Near the entrance, several men are laughing at another man’s banal, explicit clowning. But Mike is not in the mood for nonsense. Restless and desperate, he wonders how much longer he can maintain.

It has been four weeks since he was released from prison, after serving four years for a child abuse charge. While in prison he came to terms with his problem, realizing he was addicted not only to his anger, but to the adrenaline rush it gives him. He vowed to himself when he was released that he would never go down that road again. He is prohibited from any contact with his son, and he understandingly complies. Required by his parole to attend anger management classes every week, he does so dutifully.

But the roadblocks for felony offenders in Colorado are wearing him down. He can’t secure employment beyond day labor because the ID card he was issued by the Department of Corrections is invalid for DMV or Social Security purposes. And his felony conviction has prohibited him from being accepted by every apartment he has applied for.

The only place that will accept him is the Salvation Army’s Crossroads homeless shelter, which is where many newly released prisoners end up. Entrance to the shelter is limited; residents are required to leave from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. daily, rain or shine. Life in the shelter is not unlike prison. The other day, he watched as two former DOC inmates beat down another man in the smoking area out back and took all his money. A shelter volunteer, responsible for halting such activity, laughed as he watched and then did nothing. Very much like a prison guard.

He remembers counting the days to his release, anxious to have served his debt to society and be free. But now he worries about finding a job, or a place to live. He knows if he doesn’t do so soon, it will violate his parole and they will send him back. His existence feels like prison without the bars.

He just got back today from shoveling snow for three days, and he made a pretty decent sum of cash. But without a valid ID, he can’t open a bank account. Just like in prison, everybody knows everybody else’s business. As he peers from beneath his sackcloth, he knows it’s only a matter of time before they come to try to steal his money.

As a newly-released ex-offender on parole, he knows the last place he should be is surrounded by criminals. And they know it too. As he gazes at the shelter’s entrance, the streets beckon to him to come out and play, calling him for one last dance.

According to the Colorado Department of Corrections an average of 841 ex-offenders a month are released from Colorado prisons. The premise of serving a prison sentence is the belief that once the time has been served, the ex-offender will be allowed to pursue the rest of their lives with minimal interference, providing they succeed in staying out of trouble.

But the reality is that these former prisoners have a better chance of being re-incarcerated than they have of ever making a life for themselves. And though there are many reasons for this, aside from the fact that some of them deserve to stay in prison, most former prisoners are finding out that the structure of Colorado’s parole and judicial system is skewed to ensure their failure.

It’s a system that is costing Colorado taxpayers more than $900 million a year, and is proving to be ineffective and unsafe. Even if you don’t care about an ex-offender’s plight, it is foolish and short-sighted to not care about what happens when they get out.

“To Preserve the Public Safety”

The key argument in any discussion about Department of Corrections’ policies is always in regard to public safety. Once a criminal is found guilty and sentenced, it is DOC’s responsibility to ensure that they are not a threat to society anymore. And so long as they are locked up in one of Colorado’s prisons, this is accomplished easily enough.

The problems arise when a prisoner completes their sentence and are set free, as the majority of them eventually are. Logic might dictate that DOC’s role in ensuring public safety has been met, the prisoner has served their debt to society, and life goes on from there.

And if prisons were rehabilitative institutions, this might be a logical expectation. However, says Colorado State Public Defender Douglas Wilson, thanks largely to the “Tough on Crime” campaign inadvertently initiated by Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton, prison sentences have shifted from being rehabilitative to highly punitive. Lengthy sentences for drug offenses became the norm as “truth in sentencing” legislation emphasizes punishment over rehabilitation.

The result has been a class of ex-convict with no employment or life skills, distant and disconnected family relationships, and years of programming that has solidified an antisocial, jailhouse mentality. Suddenly, DOC’s responsibility to preserve public safety extends beyond their walls and into the community, because of the accountability they incurred by creating a legion of psychotics they are obligated to unleash onto the public.

So, what do you do with a mass of humanity unfit for public consumption?
A. Don’t ever let them out (this option may please a good portion of upscale Coloradans, but it’s not really an option).
B. Make it so impossible for any released prisoner to make it on the outside that they eventually end up in prison again.

DOC has chosen the latter option to pursue, and it has worked out spectacularly well. According to statistics compiled by the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 2008 Annual Report, recidivism rates are at 53 percent; for parolees, it’s 65 percent. Recidivism rates are defined as the percentage of released inmates that are re-incarcerated within three years of their release.

However, it’s really expensive to do business this way, and it extends beyond the obvious costs of incarceration, because for every illegal act that prompts a new jail sentence, there is going to be a victim. According to the commission’s report, these occurrences alone cost Colorado taxpayers 60 million a year. Coupled with $30,387 a year spent on each prisoner to keep them jailed, Colorado taxpayers spend more than $900 million on incarceration, a fact not lost on Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. The Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice was commissioned by Ritter in January 2008 to investigate and submit recommendations concerning cost-effective alternatives to incarceration.

“When you talk about public safety, it depends what your definition of public safety is,” says Wilson. He says DOC’s definition is to lock them back up for any infraction at all. His would be to give them a chance to become productive members of society so that they don’t have to resort to illegal activities to survive.

The John Inmann Work and Family Center

Smith Road is a lonely stretch near the intersection of Quebec and I-70. Although miles from the shelters and parole offices downtown, this is where Denver County corrections inmates are dropped off upon completing their prison sentence. Given $100 “gate money” (a figure that has not changed since 1973, despite inflation), a DOC ID card (unless their lucky enough to have their driver’s license reissued), and a color-coded polo shirt issued by DOC that signifies to law enforcement authorities the severity of their offense, they are told to report to their parole officer.

Some are lucky enough to have family or friends ready to pick them up and give them somewhere to stay while they pull their life together. Many end up in the homeless shelters, such as the Crossroads at 29th St. and Broadway. DOC will pay for the first two weeks to stay there, but after that it costs $130 every two weeks.

After their parole officer makes it clear that they are expected to obtain a stable residence and employment so that they can begin making restitution and child support payments if necessary, they are generally referred to the John Inmann center at 877 Federal Blvd. to hopefully obtain employment and housing.

“It’s sort of a one-stop shop for ex-offenders.” says Katherine Sanguinette, public information officer for DOC. Housed in an aging, bright-yellow building that still bears signs and poster boards from its out-of-business predecessor, the center professes to offer many vital services to its newly-released clientele. It also performs case management services for parolees. “We do a lot of good work here,” a receptionist chirps to an otherwise empty lobby.

Partnerships are formed with government agencies, private companies and individuals, say Sanguinette. For instance, a partnership was formed with the Department of Labor to help procure employment. “If any of our offenders need employment, they can visit one of our work force centers. There are case managers on hand at these centers to help them find a job.”

They’ve also formed partnerships with specific landlords to help obtain housing, or to find bed space at a shelter. This service is limited, however, because most corporate owned housing, along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and most of the Denver metro area’s housing authorities, refuse housing to anyone with a felony conviction. This leaves only privately-owned properties and, according to Sanguinette, “they go fast.”

A partnership with the Department of Revenue has made it possible for ex-offenders to obtain drivers licenses and ID cards. “In the past year, we’ve helped obtain over 1000 IDs,” says Sanguinette.

“We work hard to help with the re-integration process,” says Sanguinette. It’s hard to doubt the passion and commitment of anyone associated with the John Inmann center. After all, the old building on Federal is the only Colorado Department of Corrections re-entry facility in the entire state.

The cost of doing business

Douglas K. Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender, is perusing the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 2008 Annual Report when he points out recidivism rates, which he feels are an indicator of failed re-entry. “That is the parole return to prison in Colorado,” he says. “That percentage is pretty damn big and is an indictment of the re-entry program.”

Wilson is a member of the 27 person commission appointed by Ritter to analyze the DOC system and make recommendations. Although passionate about curbing the runaway spending that has become a staple of the judicial system and DOC, he understands the concerns the public has. “I am not one to say there is not a place for prisons, because I think there is. But I think the information that we have is that it should be a place for violent offenders, not non-violent offenders. Not the property taxes, not the thefts, not the habitual traffic offenders, that makes no sense to me when we can supervise people on the streets for $9 a day in community-based programs.”

Wilson’s main contention is that low-level felony offenders are being given unreasonable expectations that result in them being re-incarcerated. “If you are required to report at two in the afternoon on Monday, and you got to drop a UA at 3 o’clock on Thursday, and you have to see your treatment provider at 8 o’clock on Friday, then you can’t hold a job. And if you can’t hold a job, then you can’t make the money to pay the restitution and to pay the treatment and to pay for the program. And if you can’t do that then they’re going to send you back.”

Sanguinette says that the parole department is more flexible than in the past about scheduling times for ex-offenders to meet the obligations of their parole. “We have shifted the parole officer’s focus from the office to the street,” she says. “Officers now spend their day meeting offenders at their place of employment or their residence.” As for UAs, she says when a parolee is notified to submit urine for testing, they are given four to five hours to comply.

However, several parolees interviewed said they are often notified to submit a UA in the morning, more than six to seven hours before they are off work. In addition, they say that although a surprise visit by their parole officer to their place of employment will take the place of the mandatory weekly or monthly meeting they must go to the parole office for, they feel like they are being spied on, and that the visits inspire suspicion about them from their employer.

When an offender arrives at prison, their driver’s license and social security card are confiscated. If they don’t have anyone to mail them to, or no one to pick them up, the documents are destroyed. They are issued a DOC ID card and told that it is a valid state ID. But neither the Social Security Administration nor the Department of Motor Vehicles recognize it as valid identification. They are told they need to produce an original birth certificate from their state of birth. And though not impossible, the process is time-consuming; time that they cannot secure employment because they have no identification.

“There’s no correlation between what we take drivers licenses away for,” says Wilson. “If you’re out on a possession for coke, they take your driver’s license. Well, why? What’s the rehabilitative nature there of taking your driver’s license?”

Parolees are mandated to conform to many requirements. They are expected to secure and maintain gainful employment and housing, abstain from using alcohol or drugs, attend all meetings and treatment programs specified by their parole officers, and pay all court-ordered fines, restitution and child support. Any deviation from these responsibilities, any missed meeting or payment, any hot UA, is a technical violation of their parole and serves cause for them to be sent back to prison.

According to DOC statistics, 65 percent of all parolees are returned to prison within three years of starting their parole. Of this 65 percent, 60 percent are returned on technical violations, not for committing a new crime.

“I think that for guys and gals to come out and make it in today’s world is tough, and that’s why we have such a huge revocation percentage on technical violations, not new offenses,” says Wilson. “They can’t make their appointments, they can’t get a job and they can’t do their treatment.”

“But if you hit the street and you got no drivers license, you got no place to live, you got no job and you’ve got to go to the parole department or drop UAs and get treatment three times a week, you don’t have much of a shot. You’re set up to fail.”

The Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice

The commission was convened by Ritter to conduct a five year study and report, on a yearly basis, its findings and recommendations concerning the criminal and juvenile justice system. The first year is dedicated to reducing recidivism and curbing the costs of corrections. These issues were given first priority because they are the most critical to enhancing public safety. According to Wilson, it’s simply not enough to incarcerate people for five to ten years and then let them go. If they aren’t given an alternative to the life style of crime they had before, they will invariably pick up where they left off when they are released.

“What the community seems to have forgotten is that most guys are coming out,” says Wilson. “So you better start working with them as they’re going in to make sure that they don’t go back in, because we cannot continue to pay $30,387 a year per inmate to keep people in prison.”

In their report, the commission recommends 66 changes to the judicial system and DOC’s business practices and work processes that are designed to improve the transition from prison to society for ex-offenders and maximize the chances of their success. Eight of these deal specifically with giving them the opportunity to learn a new skill, which includes job training and community college classes while they are still in prison and job placement assistance when they get out.

One might wonder why Colorado taxpayers should pay to educate, and then give jobs to, a group of deviants whom were recently incarcerated for committing crimes against a society they now wish to rejoin.

One reason is it’s simply less expensive in the long run to do business this way. Studies by the commission have shown that strong ties to employment and family reduce recidivism considerably. Less recidivism means less people going back to prison, and less that has to be spent on corrections. It also creates a larger work force, which creates more commerce and a healthier economy.

A more important reason is safety to the community. A well-known adage between convicts is that the only thing they learned in prison was how to be a better criminal. And, as stated earlier, sooner or later, they’re coming out. Do we want an institutionalized thug whose primary concern is who their next victim is? Or do we want someone who is anxious to start a new career and become a productive member of society?

“You can’t look at re-entry from the day the guy gets out,” says Wilson. “You got to look at re-entry the day before the guy goes in. And that’s when re-entry should start. If somebody’s going in, you should start working with them at that point with the idea of a successful reintegration into society.”

“I’m not advocating that murderers and rapists and aggravated robbers and drug dealers should get much of a break, but I still think we need to look at the reintegration program from the day they went in.”

Mike might have appreciated such considerations, but he managed to pull himself up. He met up with his birth mother, whom he had never met before, and together with his brother they rented a two-bedroom apartment. The situation is somewhat tenuous, however. Because of his felony, Mike is not on the lease. If the property owners found out he was living there, they would all be evicted immediately.

He secured a job with a fast food restaurant, and has been employed with them for over a year. Mike clings to his job. He knows between the job and his residence, they are the only things keeping him from being sent back to prison. He uses the light rail and bus systems to get himself to and from work. Fearing reprisal from the parole office, he asked that his real name not be used for this story.

He spends all of his free time playing computer games on an old computer he found and refurbished.

He has no friends.

And though under control, he is still really angry. ..Source.. by Denver Criminal Justice Examiner

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Are ALL sex offenders prohibited from living in federally assisted housing?

3-7-2009 National:

It never ceases to amaze me how many folks get this WRONG, including people who manage housing apartments. HUD Law and Rules DO NOT prohibit ALL sex offenders from applying for federally assisted housing.

Note: Below you will see that HUD law and rules, developed years ago, prohibit RSOs with a "Lifetime Registration Requirement (LRR)" from APPLYING for housing, and HUD says that LRR is synonymous with "dangerous."

That position was BEFORE the effects of the Adam Walsh Act (AWA), under which MANY folks are being forced into Tier III which has a LRR and now be considered dangerous, some of which have court rulings saying they are not. Accordingly, AWA will now prohibit folks who would have been accepted before AWA. Further, an open question is, if someone is living in public housing who, after AWA, would be prohibited from living there, can they be forced out? The law and rules are clear, only those APPLYING for can be prohibited, there is nothing saying EVICT if already living there. Hopefully lawyers will have a field day with this.


HUD LAWS:

Title 42, Chapter 135—RESIDENCY AND SERVICE REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER I—STANDARDS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESIDENCY IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER II—AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE PREFERENCES FOR ELDERLY RESIDENTS AND UNITS FOR DISABLED RESIDENTS IN CERTAIN SECTION 8 ASSISTED HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER III—SERVICE COORDINATORS FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED RESIDENTS OF FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBCHAPTER V—SAFETY AND SECURITY IN PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING

SUBCHAPTER V:
§ 13663. Ineligibility of dangerous sex offenders for admission to public housing:
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an owner of federally assisted housing shall prohibit admission to such housing for any household that includes any individual who is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program. (Click on SUBCHAPTER V for more information)

HUD RULES:
The rule prohibits ONLY THOSE sex offenders who are "subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program." See the HUD Rule 5.856 which follows:

HUD Rule CFR 24 § 5.856
When must I prohibit admission of sex offenders?

You (Public Housing Management) must establish standards that prohibit admission to federally assisted housing if any member of the household is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program. In the screening of applicants, you must perform necessary criminal history background checks in the State where the housing is located and in other States where the household members are known to have resided. (See § 5.905.)

Is this the current status of this rule? Yes, last checked on 2-23-2009.

If you wish to check it for yourself then CLICK

1) Then click on "Browse and/or search the CFR"

2) Scroll down to Title 24 "Housing and Urban Development," in the first column is the date of the most recent changes to these rules (April 1, 2008 as of this writing) click on that date

3) Scroll down till you see the title "Browse Parts" just beneath that you will see 0-99 click on that,

4) Now you will see a page of links, click on the one that says "General HUD program requirements; waivers"

5) You will see all the rules that pertain to "Housing" and there are two that pertain to sex offenders: 5.856 and 5.905. (5.856 is above and 5.905 is below, assuming they have not changed since 4-1-2008).

If a resident is NEWLY convicted, can they be booted out?

No, read the rule carefully, "In screening of applicants, ..." that means only when people apply for a lease OR when a lease comes up for renewal.

IMPORTANT NOTE:
Various states have excluded CERTAIN sex offenders from the requirement to register. i.e., California and Oregon have something known as a "Certificate of Rehabilitation (COR)" which permits that sex offender to stop registering, so PHA must be careful when performing screenings and cannot TOTALLY rely on a background criminal check. Notice in the case of a COR applicant, s/he is no longer required to register, hence, is not subject to lifetime registration under that state's law. However, if a COR person no longer lives in the state that issued the COR, they may have lifetime registration requirements where they are now living. Many states have various exceptions (and exemptions) to their state's registration laws and when considering applicants your process must have a way to filter these folks out.

HUD Hearing Precedent:
HUD has held many hearings on many issues in many states. Someone may come up with a case where that Hearings Officer ruled contrary to HUD Rule 5.856, if so, then make sure that Hearings Officer DID CONSIDER the "Lifetime Requirement" when rendering their decision. If they didn't they may be unaware of it and that decision would be distinguishable.

Summarizing:
Now this is the current state of HUD Rules regarding sex offenders, but HUD Rules go way beyond that, there are other rules, such as dangerousness to other residents, that may enter a decision and be applicable, following consideration of the sex offender status.

Have a good day, and if anyone finds anything different from the above, please forward it so we may adjust this accordingly.
eAdvocate


===================================

HUD Rule CFR 24 § 5.905 What special authority is there to obtain access to sex offender registration information?

(a) PHA obligation to obtain sex offender registration information.

(1) A PHA that administers a Section 8 or public housing program under an Annual Contributions Contract with HUD must carry out background checks necessary to determine whether a member of a household applying for admission to any federally assisted housing program is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program. This check must be carried out with respect to the State in which the housing is located and with respect to States where members of the applicant household are known to have resided.

(2) If the PHA requests such information from any State or local agency responsible for the collection or maintenance of such information, the State or local agency must promptly provide the PHA such information in its possession or control.

(3) The State or local agency may charge a reasonable fee for providing the information.

(b) Owner’s request for sex offender registration information—
(1) General. An owner of federally assisted housing that is located in the jurisdiction of a PHA that administers a Section 8 or public housing program under an Annual Contributions Contract with HUD may request that the PHA obtain information necessary to determine whether a household member is subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration requirement.

(2) Procedure. If the request is made in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section:

(i) The PHA must request the information from a State or local agency;

(ii) The State or local agency must promptly provide the PHA such information in its possession or control;

(iii) The PHA must determine whether such information may be a basis for applicant screening, lease enforcement or eviction, based on the criteria used by the owner as specified in the owner’s request, and inform the owner of the determination.

(iv) The PHA must notify the owner of its determination whether sex offender registration information received by the PHA under this section concerning a household member may be a basis for applicant screening, lease enforcement or eviction in accordance with HUD requirements and the criteria used by the owner.

(3) Contents of request. As the owner, your request must specify whether you are asking the PHA to obtain the sex offender registration information concerning the household member for applicant screening, for lease enforcement, or for eviction and include the following information:

(i) Addresses or other information about where members of the household are known to have lived.

(ii) If you intend to use the PHA determination regarding any such sex offender registration information for applicant screening, your request must include your standards in accordance with § 5.855(c) for prohibiting admission of persons subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement.

(iii) If you intend to use the PHA determination regarding any such sex offender registration information for eviction, your request must include your standards for evicting persons subject to a lifetime registration requirement in accordance with § 5.858.

(iv) If you intend to use the PHA determination regarding any such sex offender registration information for lease enforcement other than eviction, your request must include your standards for lease enforcement because of criminal activity by members of a household.

(4) PHA disclosure of records. The PHA must not disclose to the owner any sex offender registration information obtained by the PHA under this section.

(5) Fees. If an owner asks a PHA to obtain sex offender registration information concerning a household member in accordance with this section, the PHA may charge the owner reasonable fees for making the request on behalf of the owner and for taking other actions for the owner. The PHA may require the owner to reimburse costs incurred by the PHA, including reimbursement of any fees charged to the PHA by a State or local agency for releasing the information, the PHA’s own related staff and administrative costs. The owner may not pass along to the applicant or tenant the costs of a sex offender registration records check.

(c) Records management. (1) The PHA must establish and implement a system of records management that ensures that any sex offender registration information record received by the PHA from a State or local agency under this section is:

(i) Maintained confidentially;

(ii) Not misused or improperly disseminated; and

(iii) Destroyed, once the purpose for which the record was requested has been accomplished, including expiration of the period for filing a challenge to the PHA action without institution of a challenge or final disposition of any such litigation.

(2) The records management requirements do not apply to information that is public information, or is obtained by a PHA other than under this section.

(d) Opportunity to dispute. If a PHA obtains sex offender registration information
from a State or local agency under paragraph (a) of this section showing that a household member is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement, the PHA must notify the household of the proposed action to be based on the information and must provide the subject of the record, and the applicant or tenant, with a copy of such information, and an opportunity to dispute the accuracy and relevance of the information. This opportunity must be provided before a denial of admission, eviction or lease enforcement action on the basis of such information.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

CA- Are you a registered sex offender in the state of California ???

7-21-2008 California:

IF you are a RSO living in the state of California, and registered in the state of California, and NO NO NO NO other state, then you MAY MAY MAY be eligible for what is known as a Certificate of Rehabiltation which would permit you to stop registering.

I repeat, this DOES NOT apply to anyone registered in any state but California.

This law firm has posted a procedure to determine IF IF IF you would qualify for a Certificate of Rehabilitation, see the following (follow each link carefully):


Are you a registered sex offender in California?

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 1)

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 2)

Still Registering as a Sex Offender? Looking to Stop? This Three Part Series Will Discuss The Different Ways We Can Help You Get Off The Registration Rolls (Part 3)

If you qualify then make sure you ask them, how will the Adam Walsh Act affect a Certificate of Rehabilitation holder? Will you still be required to register under AWA in spite of having a Certificate of Rehabilitation, YES or NO?

CLICK to contact those lawyers.

Have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...