More police misconstructions which are likely to result in charges for this man! Study my highlights, is he guilty of "failure to register" ????
7-25-2009 Michigan:
GRAND RAPIDS -- As city police Officer John Wetzel and Detective Kristen Rogers pulled along the curb on Turner Avenue NW, a head peeked through the front door window of a brick house.
Out poured three residents and a small black dog, greeting Wetzel and Rogers on the front porch.
The police were there to see a 53-year-old convicted child molester who failed to renew his address with police between July 1 and July 15, as required by law.
Like about half of the offenders targeted during the Grand Rapids Police Department's quarterly searches for sex offender who fail to renew their address, the man told police he simply forgot.
"I should have, but I have a hard time keeping track of things," he told the officers. "I know I can get in trouble for not doing it and it's not a big deal to go down there."
Six Grand Rapids officers swept across much of city Friday evening, issuing citations to sex offenders who hadn't renewed address or failed to pay registration fees.
The sweeps typically target 20 to 25 people who failed to register, or about 3 percent of the city's estimated 750 registered sex offenders. On Friday, about 30 offenders were sought, Wetzel said.
Officers don't make arrests during the sweeps, but citations put sex offenders back in front of judges and reinforce the need to renew addresses.
"It sends a message that they need to be compliant or they're going to be involved in the court system once again," said Wetzel, who has performed more than a dozen concentrated sweeps. "Word tends to get out that we're looking for them."
The responses typically follow a few patterns -- the offenders are either apologetic for forgetting, away from the residence at the time, or on the lam.
For Wetzel and Rogers, a stop at a small Northeast Side house on Cusick Place NW yielded information that a 41-year-old man had given a false address when registering.
When Wetzel and Rogers drove up to the house, where Michael Jackson's "P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)" blared and a dog yipped in the background, a woman came out to speak with the officers.
"He stayed here but he never lived here," the woman said of the delinquent offender. "I don't want no problems."The facts: Police go to this home, obviously he had registered there. The woman says "he stayed here but never lived here," followed by "I don't want no trouble." If he was staying there, he was living there and her last comment implies she is afraid she will be charged with something.
Did he fail to register, no, he is in jail on some other charge. BUT, the police look only at a portion of her comment "he never lived here" and decide to charge him with the crime of failure to register.
How lame is this, facing jail on a police misconstruction. Hopefully the lawyer will read this news article and have that charge dismissed.
The missing offender, who was convicted for criminal sexual conduct, was found to be in the Kent County Jail on larceny charges. He likely will face charges for providing a false address, and the woman's address will be removed from the sex offender registry.
If the offender can't be immediately located, officers will "pound the pavement, knocking on doors" in next few days, Wetzel said.
"It's not like the case is going to sit around for another couple weeks," he said. "We all work together."
For all offenders, a citation with a maximum penalty of 93 days in prison is issued. If an offender has been delinquent in registering twice, the sentence could climb to one year. For a third offense, the maximum penalty is four years in prison.
The six officers receive overtime pay for the sweeps as part of a grant provided specifically for tracking sex offenders. The sweeps are designed to ensure sex offenders aren't moving to new residences, hopefully reducing recidivism rates among the convicted.
For Rogers, a detective on the department's sex crimes unit making her first registration sweep Friday, the crimes are familiar.
"I like doing the sex investigations because you feel like you're doing something really positive, maybe compared to some of the other crimes," she said. ..Source.. by Jacob Carpenter | The Grand Rapids Press
July 25, 2009
MI- Police sweep Grand Rapids to issue citations to sex offenders who missed registration deadline
June 18, 2008
IA- Davenport Police officer filed false report in child porn case
6-18-2008 Iowa:
A Davenport police officer admitted in court Tuesday that he initially filed a false report when he discovered child pornography on Paul Wells’ computer in 2003, but the judge reserved his decision on whether that error is enough to keep the evidence from his trial.
Wells, who spent the past five years in Panama, and his attorney David Treimer argue that police discovered the photos only after searching his computer for evidence of drug dealing following an early morning home invasion at Wells’ apartment in July 2003.
Wells, who is a registered sex offender, is charged in U.S. District Court, Davenport, with two counts of possession of child pornography and criminal forfeiture in violation of exploitation of minors. Police allegedly found 20 photographs and 15 videos of child pornography on his computer.
Davenport police who testified Tuesday said they found drug materials in a vacant apartment next door to Wells and had suspicion that the home invasion stemmed from drug deals involving Wells. Wells is not facing charges for drug dealing, and police who testified Tuesday could not recall if they found any evidence of drugs in his apartment.
Wells was taken to the hospital after being injured during the home invasion. His wife, Velky Wells, who is now in Panama, gave police permission to search the home while at the hospital, but Treimer argued that she didn’t understand English and didn’t realize she was consenting to a search for drugs.
Prosecutors and police say the consent warrant was in Spanish, except for the portion that listed exactly what police would be looking for. The officer who had her sign the warrant said he didn’t know Spanish but was certain that Wells’ wife understood what she was agreeing to.
Detective Lance Denger said in his report that he was searching for drugs when he tripped over an exercise bicycle, woke the computer from sleep mode and found a picture of children around the age of 10 involved in sexual activity. He said he did not know at the time that Wells was a registered sex offender.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Denger acknowledged that his report was wrong and he activated the computer to search for evidence of drug dealing, such as ledgers or photographs when he found the child pornography.
When questioned by Treimer, Denger could not recall how quickly he called his lieutenant to advise him of what he found.
Treimer argued that police had little need to search the computer and suggested it was unlikely they would find evidence of drug dealing on the machine. He also said Wells’ wife would not have consented to the search if she better understood what they were looking for and was not emotional following the injury of her husband and parents, who were also at the apartment when the attack occurred.
Wells, his wife, their daughter and her parents, left for Panama five days after the alleged attack and police search. Velky Wells is a native of Panama.
Velky Wells was supposed to testify by phone Tuesday, but the line was busy every time the court tried to reach her. Judge John Jarvey agreed to hear Treimers’ account of what Velky Wells would testify to after the prosecutor, Joel Barrows, did not object.
Jarvey must rule on the motion to suppress evidence before the July 21 trial date. ..News Source.. by Dustin Lemmon
November 10, 2007
Sex offenders and civil liberties
Ordinance sparks debate over whether the two go hand and hand
11-7-2007 North Carolina:
Convicted sex offenders don’t have many advocates, but a recent rush of laws banning them from public parks has called into question just how many civil liberties these people should have to give up.
Jackson County Sheriff Jimmy Ashe knows exactly how complicated this issue can be. Jackson County enacted an ordinance in September 2007 banning sex offenders from public parks, but at least one county commissioner pointed out that such a law would mean. A local man who is on the sex offender registry would be barred from watching his stepchildren participate in sports. Even Ashe, who helped push the ordinance through, admitted this was a unique set of circumstances for which he did not have an easy answer.
The bottom line for Ashe, however, is that these kinds of ordinances should apply equally to all sex offenders.
“These offenders have got themselves into this situation and it might be a mistake, but we still have to protect our children,” he said.
The worst of crimes
Sex offenses are among the most taboo of crimes in this country. Perpetrators are despised, harassed, and shunned by the rest of society. Offenders are permanently placed on a registry, their faces, addresses and crimes grouped together for all to see — an effort to alert the community and prevent further offenses from occurring.
But to what point should a person’s individual rights be eclipsed in an effort to protect the general public, particularly children?
To some, an ordinance banning sex offenders from public parks is a prime example of an attempt at protection that goes too far. These types of ordinances have been adopted by an increasing number of towns and counties in Western North Carolina — but not without a fight. After the town of Woodfin in 2005 became the first municipality in the state to adopt an ordinance banning sex offenders from public parks, the American Civil Liberties Union sued on the grounds that that the prohibition was too broad and allowed for no exceptions.
“Obviously, state and local governments have a duty to protect their society. The problem is that we have to balance that goal with the rights of the individual and civil liberties,” said Todd Collins, an assistant professor of political science at Western Carolina University who teaches a class on constitutional law.
Note: If it were true that state and local government have a duty to protect their society, then they would have to look far beyond those convicted of sex offenses. The truth is, they look no further than those convicted of sex offenses, therefore they have ulterior motives. i.e., banishment.
The ACLU lost the case against Woodfin and a subsequent attempt to appeal was turned down by a North Carolina Court of Appeals in an Oct. 2 decision this year. Since the ordinance was upheld, other towns in WNC have moved to adopt their own versions.
Canton was one of the first. It did not even wait for a court verdict on the Woodfin case, moving to enact the ordinance in May 2005. An ordinance was adopted in Jackson County in late September of this year, and Maggie Valley passed a similar law on Oct 23.
In Waynesville, a similar ordinance was temporarily tabled until town attorney Woodrow Griffin could research similar laws and provide more information to the town board.
The sex offender registry
Some who are critical of ordinances banning those on the state’s sex offender registry from public parks believe there are substantive problems with the state’s sex offender registry itself.
In North Carolina, individuals must list their name on the registry when convicted of offenses against a minor or a sexually violent crimes (the latter category includes rape, assault, etc.). Some offenses against a minor, though, have nothing to do with sex. Instead, kidnapping and abduction by a non-parent fall under this category. That means a grandparent, stepparent or parent who takes a child without explicit permission will be listed on the sex offender registry.
Additionally, individuals who committed an offense that would cause them to register as a sex offender in another state — even if that crime wouldn’t cause them to have to register in North Carolina — still have to put their name on the sex offender registry. Collins said this situation isn’t unusual. State laws are often conflicting, and the sex offender registry is governed by each state rather than the federal government.
For example, Katy Parker, legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina, cited the recent Supreme Court case of a 17-year-old male jailed for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old in Georgia. Under North Carolina law, a perpetrator must be six years older than a victim under the age of 16 to be convicted of a sex offense. Though this law differs from the law in Georgia (where consensual sex between persons close in age is punishable), a person convicted under Georgia law would be forced to register as a sex offender in North Carolina.
No exceptions
The above instances, say the ACLU and others who question aspects of the ordinance, serve to illustrate what is perhaps the biggest flaw in banning sex offenders from public parks — the ordinances cast too wide of a net. Indeed, there are no exceptions — all registered sex offenders are banned from public parks — and there’s no process to appeal.
In the ACLU’s case against Woodfin, the organization represented a convicted sex offender named David Standley. Standley was convicted in 1987 of attempted battery and aggravated assault against a woman in Florida. Standley, who moved to Buncombe County in 2004, has since been debilitated by a stroke and resides with his mother.
“Our client, there’s no allegation he ever committed any offense against a child. He was convicted and served his time for an offense against an adult 20 years ago. He’s had a stroke; he lives with his mother. They should at least have a process where people like that who aren’t a danger could appeal to someone and say, ‘This shouldn’t apply to me,’” argues Parker.
Fred Hawley, a professor of criminal justice at WCU, agreed that in some instances the ordinance could be over-reaching.
“They stick you with a label of sex offender and you’re 40 years old and can’t take your children to a swing set,” he said.
Collins said that a lack of due process is likely the ACLU’s strongest argument against the ordinance.
“If the government is going to take away some of your rights, they have to give you an ability to contest that and state your side. If they want to take away your driver’s license, you have a right to appeal that.
“My point of view is that there could be problems with (the ordinance), both in how it’s implemented and how we monitor this. Without some exception, are we going to stop (a sex offender) from attending a family reunion at a park?” Collins said.
Justification
It’s not as if the ordinance against sex crime offenders being in public parks was implemented without justification. Though the ACLU does argue that the town of Woodfin didn’t have a specific incident to base the ordinance on — “the town admitted that there had been no prior instances of sex offenders in the park harming anyone or even any allegations that there was anybody approached,” said Parker — it’s fairly simple to correlate parks with places that sex offenders might be drawn to. In the case of pedophiles, this is particularly true.
Shows personal unsupported beliefs and even their example proves them wrong:
“(Parks are) out in the open space; they tend to be a place where children congregate. It would provide access to children for a pedophile if they were wanting to do that,” said Emma Beckner, a family advocate for Kids Advocacy Resource Effort (KARE) in Haywood County.
“Sex offenders do in fact frequent those kind of venues, where if they can’t prey on a child, they can watch them,” Hawley agreed.
Jackson County implemented its ordinance in response to a problem with a sex offender hanging around a park where children played.
“We had an incident with a registered sex offender at a local park with numerous complaints that he was lurking around a particular area. Come to find out, he was waiting for people to pick him up for employment purposes. Nevertheless, it brought up some concerns because residents knew who he was,” Ashe said.
Does the ordinance ignore the possibility that an offender can be rehabilitated? It’s possible, said WCU’s Hawley.
“With sex offenders, there’s a belief that they’re un-rehabilitatable. I’m not sure that’s true,” he said.
Again, it is a personal belief stated, they refuse to look at the truth. Further they misquote DOJ statistics:
Recidivism rates among sex offenders are high, however, particularly among those who molest children, Beckner said. Of released sex offenders, 40 percent had committed a new sex crime within a year of being discharged from prison, according to statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice. Those numbers are too high maybe to even make exceptions for those who may truly be free of a desire to commit another sexual offense.
“The problem for towns, counties, and states is that sex offenders, particularly those that are habitual child molesters, we haven’t really found a good way to treat that or rehabilitate those individuals. That’s why states and counties are trying to come up with these sex offender ordinances and really try to protect society,” Collins said.
“Is that urge still in those people to commit that crime and to harm children? If it is, (the ordinance) should apply lifelong, but we can’t pick and choose and kind of look at every person,” said Collins.
“Any risk or chance of another child being sexually molested isn’t worth the risk,” agreed Ashe. “Personally, I don’t believe sex offenders who molest children can be rehabilitated.”
Even Hawley has come to feel, after years of research, that it is the rare case when an offender is truly rehabilitated.
“I’ve come to kind of re-examine that view, that maybe these guys are so damaged and such a potential harm for the community, that I think these guys are not real good prospects for rehabilitation,” he said.
False sense of security
Some caution that these ordinances, along with the sex offender registry, may give the public a false sense of security. In truth, a public park is not the most likely place for a sexual offense to happen.
“Kids are in much more danger in their homes from sexual predators. There are a lot of statistics that support this. One of the most frequent forms of sexual predation is from another child, usually a boy, who has been preyed on by an adult male,” said Hawley.
These offenses are most likely to occur between blood relatives and family members by marriage, Hawley said. And often, crimes go un-reported.
“An awful lot of people end up committing offenses who are not on the registry,” said Parker.
Additionally, the public parks ordinance isn’t the easiest to enforce. Police rely heavily on the help of the community. Local residents alerted Ashe to the presence of a sex offender at a local park.
“We have people call us and say, ‘such and such is on the registry, he’s a relative, he happens to be up at the playground right now.’ That’s basically all we can do to monitor what happens there,” said Waynesville Police Chief Bill Hollingsed. His town doesn’t yet have the ordinance, but they’ve been discussing adopting it for two years.
Police also work to familiarize themselves with the sex offender registry in their town or county and make sure it’s kept up to date.
“We do spot checks to make sure that person is still living at the residence. Any violations of failing to notify us is a violation of the law, and they can be charged for that,” Ashe said.
Tough balance
Questioning the constitutionality of an ordinance that is meant to protect children doesn’t win the ACLU any popularity points. That’s the balance the organization has had to strike — it’s not trying to let sex offenders off the hook, but it doesn’t want to see civil rights jeopardized.
“It’s a very hard issue, and it’s an issue that is tough to talk about, because nobody disagrees that we ought to be taking care of our kids. We think this just goes way beyond doing that,” Parker said.
“You’ve gone beyond saying people have to register. You’re saying if you’re on the list, you can’t go to certain places,” Collins agreed.
The ACLU’s stance is a lonely one. Few people want to appear as if they’re supporting the rights of sex offenders over the safety of children. There’s been no one to speak out about the ordinance at the meeting of WNC towns and counties that have adopted it. The ACLU actually stopped talking to all media about their case until recently, because they had received flack from all over the country for taking it on.
“It’s a very, very important thing to protect our kids. But when people’s constitutional rights are involved, you have to have some balance there,” said Parker.
Who Has The
Ordinance:
Canton
Maggie Valley
Jackson County
Who Doesn’t:
Waynesville
Macon County/Franklin
Sylva
Swain County/Bryson City ..more.. by Julia Merchant • Staff Writer
