10-21-2010 Texas:
Convicted child killer still held under miminum security in Travis County as state ponders appeal
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to reconsider a decision that Texas improperly placed sex offender conditions on convicted Austin child killer Raul Meza, affirming an earlier ruling that criticized the way Texas' parole officials handled the case.
In a two-page order issued Tuesday, the court refused to reconsider a May decision by a three-judge panel that said parolees must be given a hearing before they can be labeled as sex offenders and forced to comply with stringent rules limiting their freedom, even if they have never been convicted of a sex crime.
Such hearings would allow parolees to challenge that designation, a process not allowed previously in Texas and one that state parole officials have argued would be expensive and cumbersome to manage.
The decision, if it stands, could force parole officials to hold hearings for several thousand parolees who have been classified as sex offenders, after years of official resistance to such a process and despite numerous court rulings ordering them to do so.
Tom Kelley, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott, said a decision has not yet been made on whether to appeal the ruling.
The three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based court in its May decision had ordered parole officials to provide Meza and the other affected parolees with a written decision listing the evidence they relied upon and the reasons for attaching conditions to their parole under mandatory supervision.
The May ruling upheld an order in 2009 by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin, except the appeals court said convicts like Meza were not entitled to a lawyer when they challenge their classification as a sex offender.
Texas officials had appealed the May decision, asking that all 16 judges on the appeals court reconsider the ruling by the three-judge panel.
In its Tuesday order, the court declined to do so.
"The Circuit's decision clarifies the due-process rights of some 1,000 people whom Texas treats as sex offenders, even though they were never convicted of a sex offense," said Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project and one of Meza's attorneys.
Harrington said the ruling didn't surprise him as much as "how hard the state has resisted" giving the affected inmates hearings.
Rissie Owens , chairwoman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles , could not be reached for comment.
Meza was convicted of killing 8-year-old Kendra Page at a Southeast Austin elementary school playground in 1982.
He was sentenced to 30 years in prison and later received another four years for obtaining a smuggled weapon in prison.
Meza was released from prison in 1993 when his time served and good-behavior time equaled the length of his sentence. He was first put on parole, then returned to prison in 1994 for a curfew violation.
In 2002, when he was scheduled for release from prison, he was instead transferred to a minimum-security part of the Travis County jail system . He has remained there since.
In court filings, Meza's lawyers have argued that parole restrictions imposed on him — Meza must be escorted by a parole officer and cannot approach or cross "child-safety zones" such as schools and day cares — have made it impossible for him to find a job.
Without a job, Meza cannot find a place to live, requiring him to remain incarcerated past the end of his sentence, the lawyers have said.
Early this year , Meza was charged with violating terms of his parole by making a terroristic threat and attempting to obtain a pistol. In March, the parole board voted to continue his supervision unchanged, according to parole officials. ..Source.. Mike Ward AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
October 21, 2010
U.S. court affirms Meza entitled to sex offender hearing
August 11, 2009
TX- Sex offender policy on parolees troubling
8-11-2009 Texas:
A case pending before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin raises some serious concerns about the way the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles conducts business.
The board apparently has established a policy that allows corrections officials to classify some parolees as sex offenders although they have not been convicted of a sex crime.
The finding does not involve a jury or judge. It is based on a psychiatric evaluation ordered by the state and an internal finding that the parolee could pose a public safety threat.
Until June, the parolees were not given copies of the state-mandated evaluation and they and their lawyers were not allowed to attend the hearings.
That policy was modified as the case before Sparks prepared to go to trial. Still, parole officials insist there is no legal requirement for a live hearing and note that to give everyone a hearing would cost $1.7 million in additional staff, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
There are apparently about 650 parolees who have been placed under sex-offender rules without sex-crime convictions.
In the case pending before Sparks, parolee Ray Curtis Graham claims the restrictions imposed on him by state corrections officials meant he had to undergo sex-abuse therapy and barred him from becoming a minister and going to church, the Austin newspaper reports.
There have been at least three other similar lawsuits filed in Austin over the board's policy, along with more than a dozen other lawsuits across the state.
This type of policy undermines the criminal justice system and is not good public policy.
The courts are looking over this issue and several federal judges have questioned the legality of the state's policy. But it could take years in the legal system before the matter is resolved.
The parole board needs to reconsider this policy before the taxpayers are left with a huge tab for legal fees over a very questionable policy. ..Editorial.. by Express-News
March 14, 2009
GA- Georgia law puts non-offenders on sex registry
3-14-2009 Georgia:
Child molesters, rapists and other sex criminals often remain dangerous even after they’ve served their time, and Georgia’s sex offender registry is designed to keep a leash on them.
The law, one of the nation’s toughest, tracks most offenders until they die, dictating where they can live and work.
But the law has a peculiar twist: There are a growing number of registered sex offenders in Georgia who did not commit a sex offense. The law applies to anyone convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor, regardless if a sexual act was committed.
At 17, Darnelle Harvey took part in the robbery of a Dairy Queen in Chamblee. Brandishing a gun, he ordered a 16-year-old to lie down as the holdup progressed. This got him a false imprisonment conviction, and because the victim was under 18, Harvey became a sex offender.
Now 36, he acknowledges his mistakes.
“I’m no saint, I know that,” Harvey said recently. “What I did was bad, stupid, and I spent years in prison regretting it every day. But I’m not a sex offender.”
Some legislators agree.
The law was drawn so broadly that it has triggered another: the law of unintended consequences, Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland) said.
“We’re trying to clarify it,” he said. “We need to concentrate solely on those who really are sex offenders so we know where they are to keep them away from children.”
Harp’s legislation amends a number of provisions, including requiring those convicted of kidnapping or falsely imprisoning a minor to be on the registry only when their crimes involve a sex offense. The bill recently passed the Senate by a 52-2 vote. It is now before the House.
Rep. David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) said lawmakers initially passed the provision with the belief that anyone convicted of committing crimes of force and violence against minors should also receive the same fate as sex offenders. But Ralston said last week he was open to revisiting the issue.
The sex offender law has encountered legal setbacks. The Georgia Supreme Court has struck down certain provisions, including mandatory life sentences for offenders who failed to register a second time.
The kidnapping and false imprisonment provisions also face a court challenge.
A Fulton County judge recently heard arguments on behalf of a man convicted of false imprisonment during a May 2000 drug robbery in Gwinnett County.
“Doesn’t it sound screwy what’s going on here?” Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter asked, when told Jake Rainer is a registered sex offender who committed no sex crime.
For Harvey, the distinction is not a small one.
When convicts serve their sentences, their debts are paid, and they are generally free to live and work wherever they can find shelter and employment.
But the sex offender registry is a kind of life sentence. Those on it cannot live or work within 1,000 feet of places children congregate, such as parks, schools, rec centers and swimming pools.
Harvey must now report every three days to the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office and provide a location where he stays, a requirement of those who are homeless, as he is.
His journey to the sex offender registry began with the 1990 robbery of the DQ.
Before the restaurant closed that night, Harvey and his co-defendant, Eddie Montgomery, waited nearby in the woods, watching.
Harvey told Montgomery he didn’t want to go through with it. But Montgomery pointed his gun at Harvey and said he had no choice, Montgomery said during his guilty plea. Harvey complied.
A 16-year-old boy, the first to emerge from the DQ, was ordered to lie down — the basis of the false imprisonment charge. When the others walked out, Harvey and Montgomery robbed them at gunpoint and fled with the cash. They were arrested two weeks later.
Harvey pleaded guilty and spent seven years in prison.
Harvey learned welding after getting out of prison, but he could not accept a job as a welder last year because he had to leave the state. He recently got a job doing repair work at Big Boot Ranch in Ellenwood, but he had to leave that because the ranch hosts parties for children.
“He wanted to work, wanted to move his life along,” ranch owner John Sturdivant said.
“If you can’t work, you can’t take care of yourself. When you can’t do that, it might lead to robbing or stealing. What’s left?”
About 90 people are on the sex offender registry for false imprisonment convictions and another 90 are on it for kidnapping.
Prison records indicate at least 33 of those offenders committed a sex crime when they kidnapped or falsely imprisoned their victims.
Donnie Lee Boone is not one of them.
In 1994, Boone and two others held up an Augusta restaurant. Because the men moved four employees, one a 17-year-old, from one part of the restaurant to another, they were convicted of kidnapping.
After serving nearly 12 years in prison, Boone was granted parole in 2006. But the parole board refused to release him because he could not meet the sex-offender residency requirements.
The board said he could not move in with his mother because her home was within 1,000 feet of a park, a church and a rec center. In 2008, Mica Doctoroff, an investigator for the Southern Center for Human Rights, determined that the church and park were 2,000 feet from the woman’s home. The rec center didn’t exist.
In April 2008, Boone was released — two years after being granted parole — and moved in with his mother.
Boone, 40, is now taking online computer college classes to earn an associate’s degree in business.
“I had to serve additional time for being a sex offender when I didn’t commit a sex crime,” he said. “It’s still unbelievable to us.” ..News Source.. by BILL RANKIN, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
August 20, 2008
The dilution of a sex offender
8-20-2008 National:
Making the term apply to non-sex-offenders a scary proposition
The term "sex offender" has the tendency to, quite rightfully, strike fear in parents' hearts, cause countless Web sites to track registries (complete with searchable maps), and inspire the citizenry to distribute fliers and call public meetings. And we're not making light of any of it -- the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute estimates that two of every 10 girls and one of every 10 boys will be abused by the end of their 13th year.
It is terrifying, and often has a lifetime of repercussions for the victims.
That's why diluting the term by adding a whole host of criminals to the database is a scary proposition indeed.
And that includes naked priests.
This week, a court declined to downgrade the conviction of Rev. Robert Whipkey, 53, to a petty offense of public indecency. Whipkey, a Catholic priest who has been on administrative leave from the archdiocese since his arrest, was charged with indecent exposure after being caught running naked around the Frederick High School track last June.
It was 4:30 a.m. The witness was an off-duty police officer, who followed the man home, and confronted him there.
This week, a judge ruled that the conviction was constitutional.
"Given the nature of sex offenders and the risk they pose to the community, the court finds that, for those who knowingly expose themselves to the public, it is reasonable that they are given a higher level of sanctions and registrations," Weld County Judge Timothy Kerns said.
Whipkey will be sentenced in October. He faces possible jail time and registering as a sex offender.
Years ago, he had been investigated by the archdiocese for inappropriate behavior. But not charged. And a woman testified this summer that she saw him naked 20 years ago at a camp site. Again: Not charged.
There are problems with sex offender registries going on in Colorado and nationwide right now.
When our courts add, say, a 18-year-old student who has consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend in Georgia, or a man running naked around a Weld County school track at 4:30 a.m., they risk making the term obsolete, or at least weaker than it should be.
When you hear the term "sex offender" do you immediately think there's a risk to area children -- or does your mind start to wander toward how the term applies to a broad base of crimes, including streaking and urinating in public?
That's not to say these things are not crimes, because they are. Running around in the buff is illegal, and so is statutory rape, even when it's consensual. Lumping all of these crimes into the sex offender registry is, however, offensive.
All of it is available online, as well, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. And sites like www.familywatchdog.us have searchable maps. Sometimes they are rich with detail, including profile pictures. But they are often short on facts: Such as with what, exactly, the person was charged.
Information is a good thing, but it's incomplete. Individuals can obsess about which registered offenders may be close to their neighborhoods and parks, but our children would be safer if parents and guardians focused even closer to home. In the vast majority of abuse cases, the abuser is a close friend or family member. Looking for signs of abuse and talking about it with our kids is a better strategy than clicking on any map. ..Opinion Source.. Erika Stutzman : HT: Sex Crimes
May 30, 2008
MI- Massage or sexual assault at nail salon?
5-30-2008 Michigan:
KENTWOOD, Mich. (WOOD) -- Was it a massage or sexual assault?
That is the question some are asking about a Kentwood nail salon.
Best Nails Spa in a strip mall on 60 Street in Kentwood advertises for manicures and pedicures. It is a place Cheryl has gone for years...until now.
She doesn't want her identity disclosed, but she talks about another service she received from a manicurist - a massage.
"He started going into areas he shouldn't have," she told 24 Hour News 8, "and I became very uncomfortable. He massaged my breast area for several minutes on each one."
She says he got close to her genital area.
She filed a police report against Anthony Tran, a licensed manicurist who runs the spa with his wife. He pleaded no contest to disorderly obscene conduct in the case last month.
The case is closed but the report raises questions about licensing.
Now city officials say they are looking into it all because Tran shouldn't have been doing massages at all.
24 Hour News 8 asked Tran if he ever touched the breast area of a woman.
"No," he answered.
It is a different story than what he told detectives.
"I asked him if he had touched this female/victim's breast or genital area. Anthony stated yes...he then replied that while massaging he often checks for breast cancer. He does this as a service to the customer," according to the police report.
Tran also told police that he will massage breasts as part of a massage.
"No, that's different. I don't want to go into detail," he told 24 Hour News 8.
Tran said it's his word versus hers.
It is a frustration since the victim never complained to him and even tipped him for all the services afterward.
Both factors, the prosecutor's office says, that played into the final charge.
"If somebody told me this story I would have said, 'Why didn't you fight him off? Why didn't you get up and leave the room?' But when you're in that situation you literally freeze and become numb," said Cheryl.
She was numb at first, but she doesn't want to be silent. She is the only one on record to come forward against Tran but she wants other women to have courage to do the same if they have a similar story. ..News Source.. byEmily Zangaro
September 29, 2007
Be They Fish or Not Fish: The Fishy Registration of Nonsexual Offenders
2007
Abstract:
The article deals with a bizarre but common phenomenon: the registration of nonsexual criminals in sex offender registries. The practice has been challenged in a number of cases, but there is much disagreement among courts - often within the same jurisdiction - on its constitutionality, and on the analysis it entails. The issue has recently picked-up steam - reaching some state Supreme Courts (Florida's and Illinois'), and appearing in the popular news media. The article offers a comprehensive analysis of the Substantive Due Process issues involved, showing why registering nonsexual criminal in sex offender registries is a violation of the federal Constitution (both on the part of the States and on the part of the federal government). It also shows that the registration of nonsexual criminals in sex offender registries is a first-rate case-study for negligent policy-making (supported by faulty data), which frequently received a stamp of approval from an often-poor judicial reasoning, itself supported by an impoverished constitutional jurisprudence. ..more.. by OFER RABAN, University of Detroit Mercy School of Law; University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law zipzipzip
