Police Arrest Sex Offender During Sunday Mass at St. Alexander

This is unbelievable...

9-24-2010 Illinois:

A parishioner's complaint prompted police to arrest a convicted sex criminal from Orland Park during Sunday services on Sept. 19.

Police arrested a registered sex offender at St. Alexander Church's Sunday Mass after a parent noticed the man among the worshipers.

___, 38, of the 13600 block of South Howe Drive in Orland Park, was inside the Palos Heights church but outside of the sanctuary when police took him into custody on Sept. 19, police said.

The same main entrance is used for both the church and St. Alexander Elementary School, and that was grounds for arrest, police said.

___ is charged with unlawful presence within a school zone.

"At no time were any kids harmed," said Palos Heights police Detective Gerard Wodka. ..Source.. Dan Lambert

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex Offenders?

8-26-2010 Virginia:

Last September, the probation officers of nine homeless men in Georgia ordered them to, in the words of the AP wire service, “live in the woods behind a suburban Atlanta office park.” When the state government discovered this, Georgia promptly ordered them out.

Why? No homeless shelter in Georgia could legally hold them, and the group had nowhere else to go. Those nine men were classified under Georgia law as “sex offenders,” and as such face strict restrictions for the rest of their lives on where they can travel, work, go to the bathroom, and, yes, where they can be homeless.

The Georgia example may be unusual, but it certainly isn’t unique. In 2007, Miami solved its homeless sex offender problem by housing five of them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Not in a shed or a shelter or a van down by the river. Just under the bridge.

The post-incarceration punishment of “sex offenders” is ridiculous, unconstitutional, and won’t prevent the individuals in question from committing a crime again. Worse yet, they are not the fault of overzealous law enforcement agencies in Georgia or Florida just trying to do right by saving kids from rapists. No, the fault lies with politicians.

To be clear: Sexual abuse and violence is despicable, especially toward children. Concerns about what happens to those who commit these crimes after they get out of jail are understandable. However, “sex offenders” are not just these people.

The pretentious quotes are necessary, as the definition of the term changes state to state, and is determined simply by ending up in a vast database for one reason or another (and sometimes by mistake).

In California, an old man who got caught being gay when it was illegal is considered a “sex offender.” In most states, an 18-year-old who has consensual sex with a 17-year-old is a “sex offender” for life.

An 18-year-old boy in Iowa was asked by a 14-year-old female friend to, ahem, “sext” her. The two were not involved sexually. In fact, the prosecution agreed that the whole thing was a joke. Oh well. Jorge Canal is now a sex offender. To the bridge/woods with him!

To be a “sex offender” is to suffer extra-judicial persecution for the rest of your natural life, at the whim of politicians. Laws are passed every year restricting the freedom of those labeled “sex offenders,” with the maniacal specificity only government can create.

The 2009 edition of Virginia’s “Sex Offender Statutes and Proximity Statutes” (yes, they change annually), explains that “sex offenders” are “forever prohibited” from being within 100 feet of elementary, middle and high schools, daycares, or any “playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium.”

OK. Wait, “sex offenders” aren’t allowed within 100 feet of a gym, let alone inside one? Oh, well. As we all know those people are perverts. Like Jorge Canal. Virginia law also prohibits Jorge from living within 500 feet of a public park “regularly used for school activities.” You know, like most parks. But that’s the price to pay for being a “sex offender,” right?

And Jorge might have shit luck, but these laws are doing good work by keeping children safe from dangerous predators.

Except they don’t. “Residency restrictions for sex offenders popular, but ineffective,” read a 2008 headline in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, saying “studies conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and Colorado Department of Public Safety have not shown any correlation between sex offender recidivism and living near schools or parks.”

The problem is the real dangerous people, sexual predators and their ilk, don’t need to live within 500 feet of a public park to do evil. They can always drive or walk. Want to restrict where a “sex offender” can travel?

That’s what prison is for. Want to keep “sex offenders” away from children? Then keep them in prison. Don’t pass a local ordinance telling Jorge Canal he has to live 500 feet away from anywhere children may gather.

In fact, residency restrictions serve only one purpose: getting politicians elected. No person running for office has ever run on a platform of making life easier for “sex offenders,” and no one ever will. So the laws will continue to be passed. And nine homeless men in Georgia will continue to shuffle in and out of the woods behind an office park, for perpetuity. Until somebody in power reads the Eighth Amendment. ..Source.. Perry Bentley Richmond College '11

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Restrictive sex offender registration rules force some underground

A careful review of this article will reveal that, no consideration was given to the allowable "grace period" to register which may account for many. If one registers at a shelter then leaves the next day, and from then on is on the streets (or registers in another shelter), the fact that he registered for one night at a shelter will distort the picture, unless grace periods are considered; here they are not.

As to where a repeat offender, commits a new sex offense, one cannot look purely at the "where" many other factors enter the picture before drawing conclusions. i.e., family, friends, and acquaintances, for one. Without a complete review, individual factors can distort the overall picture. The view taken in this article likely distorts the "travel to other places for crimes" scenario.

6-13-2010 Ohio:

About two-thirds of the registered sex offenders who claim to live at a men's homeless shelter on Cleveland's East Side, either have not spent a night there in the past three months or have never even set foot in the place.

And a Plain Dealer analysis suggests several of them might be living surreptitiously in the suburbs.

Court records and information provided by administrators at Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries, which runs the shelter at 2100 Lakeside Ave., confirm that more than 100 of the 166 sex offenders registered to that address are unaccounted for.

Increasingly stringent limitations on where sex offenders can live have driven many to register under false addresses and live off the grid -- beyond monitoring and treatment, say sex offender management and re-entry specialists.

And as the county's list of sex offenders grows to more than 3,000, with fewer resources to monitor them, it is impossible to know how many might have registered under one location and are living at another.

State law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care facility, and many communities have passed ordinances expanding those restrictions to include parks, libraries, even churches.

But detectives argue that, although residency restrictions pose housing problems for some, in most cases, the offenders simply are attempting to keep their whereabouts unknown.

"If there were no restrictions at all on where these guys could live, they would still lie to us," Detective Sue DeChant said in a recent interview. "They say they're not working, and they have a job. They say they don't have a vehicle, and they own 25 of them. They just don't want anyone to know who they are."

Sex offenders must register their address and other information with the sheriff's office every 90 days for a period of at least 10 years. The information, along with photos of the offenders, is posted on the state attorney general's website and is intended to alert residents of the presence of sex offenders in their neighborhoods.

After an offender is convicted, he or she has three days to register, a process that takes about an hour initially.

Playing a game of cat-and-mouse

DeChant said in many cases, it is obvious the offenders are not homeless when they try to register as a resident at the men's shelter. They often show up wearing nice clothes, jewelry or expensive-looking sunglasses and accessories, she said. Photos of the offenders on the registry website corroborate the detective's observations.

But offenders are required only to sign a document pledging that the information they provide is accurate, and they do not have to prove residency.

Within a week, a deputy sheriff will visit the shelter, call or send a list of names to cross-reference with the shelter's electronic check-in system that keeps track of attendance at the facility. But by then, the offender is off the radar.

Sheriff's detectives, who called the process a cat-and-mouse game, say that in any given week, at least one or two offenders are found to have fraudulently registered to the shelter.

After The Plain Dealer asked the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office for a list of the shelter's sex offenders whose whereabouts are unknown, detectives said they discovered two dozen new cases of registration violations that will be passed on to a grand jury for indictment in the coming weeks.

"A guy who is trying to assimilate and make good in his community is going to make good," said Detective Katie Orlando. "But these guys are using a very positive program in their own deceitful and deceptive way. And we want to do all we can to stop them from doing it."

But the detectives acknowledge that preventing registration fraud and maintaining the integrity of the registry is a daunting task for the department with only two deputies managing a growing sex offender caseload. ..Click for the remainder of article.. Leila Atassi, The Plain Dealer

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Changes in sex offender laws means fewer restrictions for some, more for others

Leave it to the media to make things more confusing, the law does not speak of "when a person was arrested" or "crimes committed before 2003," The law is based on when the offender was "convicted." (See HB 571 "convictions occurring" ... The odd part of the new bill relates to "July 1 2008" where it switches to "if the act was committed on or after July 1 2008" ...) (The bill then gets weirder with "acts occurring between July 1 2006 and July 1 2008" which then must be read as 'if one is convicted of an act occurring between 7-1-2006 and 7-1-2008. Were lawmakers drunk when they wrote this?) One would think law enforcement's "Matrix" would show those technicalities, but they too omit them. Always confusing the public. However, with that said the bill does say "knowingly violates" and that will get many acquitted of charges. I always say, if it takes a few lawyers and a judge or two to make sense of a law, then the defendant is innocent!

6-13-2010 Georgia:

The process of tracking and registering sex offenders in Floyd County has become both frustrating and confusing, said Cpl. Ron Morris with the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office.

“We have to go to the books and figure out what laws and what restrictions must be placed on each individual,” Morris said.

According to Morris, 81 percent of all registered sex offenders living in Floyd County have no restrictions placed on where they can be, largely because of changes in state law.

“Floyd County is going to see a huge number of sex offenders in the community with zero proximity restrictions. They can live directly across from a church or across from a day care and there are absolutely no restrictions at all,” Morris said.

The passage of several new state laws changes some of the restrictions put on convicted sex offenders, including where offenders live and work. The new guidelines are often referred to as the Sex Offender Matrix.

Law enforcement now use a proximity restrictions worksheet to help identify whether or not an offender is breaking the law.

Offenders arrested for crimes committed before June 4, 2003, have no proximity restrictions, but notify the sheriff’s office if they change jobs or move within 72 hours of any changes.

Those arrested on or after July 1, 2008, have the most residency restrictions and cannot live within 1000 feet of public and private preschool facilities, churches, schools and libraries.

Both Morris and Lt. Mark Blanton spend the majority of their work week making sure not only that the offenders abide by the law, but that the officers themselves are placing the proper restrictions on offenders.

However, while laws restrict where an offender can live, they don’t prevent an offender from moving into a community where families also live. Morris and Blanton said they often receive panic calls from community members concerned that an offender has moved in next door.

“There is nothing we can do. They have these rights,” said Morris.

“There is nothing that says they can’t attend school functions or ball game, as long as they are doing something any reasonable and prudent person would do,” Blanton added.

Often, Blanton said, concerned citizens are confusing sex offenders with sex predators. Floyd County only has three listed “predators” and two of them are behind bars, Morris said. ..Source.. Lydia Senn

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU calls proposed child safety zones 'unlawful'

6-10-2010 Connecticut:

A proposal to establish “child safety zones” in town that would bar registered sex offenders from places like playgrounds and sports facilities has been called a violation of civil rights by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The proposed ordinance is currently in limbo before the Representative Town Meeting (RTM), though two previous attempts to get it through were met with resistance from inside the body over concerns that it could leave the town vulnerable to a legal challenge.

In its current form, the ordinance would bar people who are registered sex offenders from entering places such as public playgrounds, recreation or teen centers, sports facilities, playing fields and schools. Those who violate the ordinance would be subject to a $100 fine.

In an earlier draft of the proposal, entire areas like schools and town beaches were included. Exceptions were later added to allow sex offenders to enter these places if, for instance, they were the site for voting. Registered offenders with children of their own would be allowed to enter schools for situations involving their children, such as early dismissal or a parent teacher conference. Public libraries, which were initially considered for inclusion among the safety zones, are now removed from the list as are beaches, except around the playgrounds.

Once people are no longer listed as sex offenders on the state registry, they would no longer be subject to the ordinance. The RTM has twice rejected this ordinance due to concerns it was too broadly written. But with new, revised language from the town attorney’s office, it will be reconsidered by the RTM.

However, even with the changes to the proposed ordinance, concerns from the ACLU continue. Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU’s Connecticut chapter, said he was “deeply concerned” about both the constitutional issues and what he termed as the “likely ineffectiveness” of protecting children from predators. In a letter to Douglas Wells, chairman of the RTM’s Legislative and Rules Committee, he wrote: “We believe that the proposed ordinance not only violates state and federal law, but is also poor public policy.”

The ordinance has also come under fire in town, and not just from people who feel it goes too far. There are also those who think it doesn’t go far enough. When first introduced, community activist and local radio host Sam Romeo was one of the ordinance’s biggest proponents. Now, however, he feels it’s been “watered down” and he isn’t even optimistic the current version will pass.

“I suppose that half a law is better than no law, but I’m not optimistic that the RTM will see the light,” Mr. Romeo told the Post on Monday. “People are too concerned that we’re going to be sued, but no one has ever been able to make a case on how this ordinance hurts people.”

The ACLU said that because the ordinance would affect areas that are commonly used for free speech and congregation, it would have a “chilling effect on free speech and association rights,” which would be in violation of the Constitution.

Additionally, Mr. Schneider said the ordinance would violate the rights of those who register to travel freely within the state by not allowing them to go where the public is allowed. However, those rights are already curtailed since people who have had to register as sex offenders cannot change their places of residence without first notifying police. Supporters of the ordinance say that it would not curtail the rights any more than existing law already does, it would just provide safer areas for children.

Mr. Wells has reviewed the letter and said that he believed steps have been taken throughout the process of adjusting the ordinance’s language to address possible legal challenges to it.

Mr. Wells didn’t indicate how much of an impact the letter will have on future deliberations.

“I would never ignore anything from the ACLU,” Mr. Wells said. “The RTM should know that the ACLU has taken an interest in the ordinance that is being considered. I will make sure this letter is discussed as part of the introductory remarks for the RTM’s call when this is introduced again.”

Mr. Romeo said the timing of the ACLU’s concerns are fishy, saying it could well be another case of Greenwich being seen as an easy target for legal challenges.

“There are five other communities with laws like this and not one of them has been challenged in court,” Mr. Romeo said. “Why all of a sudden is Greenwich a lightning rod for these people? These other towns all have laws that go even further than ours but instead they want to come after us.”

Mr. Romeo pointed to this month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a law that can keep sex offenders imprisoned past the time of their sentence if they are deemed dangerous. He said the Greenwich law has never gone that far and predicted it would survive any court challenge.

Critics of the ordinance, both locally and in the ACLU, have questioned how it can be effectively be enforced. While the language of the proposal originated from the police department, questions have persisted. Mr. Schneider gave a new voice to those concerns, wondering in the letter how a police officer would be able to reasonably believe an individual in a protected zone is a sex offender. He compared the ordinance to the controversial Arizona law where people suspected of being illegal immigrants may be stopped by law enforcement without any additional probable cause.

“Under the ordinance, every individual in a child safety zone will be subject to baseless police stops and questioning,” Mr. Schneider said.

He later added, “Laws that infringe the rights of registrants to not necessarily create greater safety and therefore create a false sense of security. Sex offenders have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders and the vast majority of crimes against children are caused by acquaintances, not strangers.”

It is possible that the ordinance could be heard at the RTM’s July meeting, but the September meeting is considered far more likely. Currently the ordinance is in draft form after being reviewed by Town Attorney Wayne Fox. ..Source.. Ken Borsuk, Staff Reporter

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Amended Lee County rule on sex offenders to go to hearings

If it is true that, you cannot criminalize -mere presence- how does that square with residency laws which declare a RSO's living (presence) in a residence, in a prohibited area, a crime?

5-12-2010 Florida:

Panel to hear comments on ordinance on May 25

Lee County commissioners approved for public hearing Tuesday an amended ordinance restricting the movement of registered sex offenders.

Commissioners will hear comment on the ordinance May 25.

The Child Safety Zone ordinance, originally passed in March 2009, was challenged as unconstitutional by two sex offenders in December. The ordinance prohibits registered sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of a number of places such as schools, day cares, video arcades, bus stops, public pools, playgrounds, certain restaurants, zoos, skate parks, beaches or "any other similar type places where children congregate," whether permanent or transient.

Fort Myers attorneys Peter Aiken and John Charles Coleman challenged phrasing in the ordinance, claiming it was too broad and unconstitutional.

Two men - Joseph Comfort, 58, and Jeffrey Israel, 48 - were arrested for being near pools in 2009. Aiken and Coleman argued the men don't know where they can and can't travel based on the ordinance.

Lee County Judges Radford Sturgis and John Duryea Jr. in December determined the ordinance is constitutional but language like "other similar type places" cause the definitions of locations to be overly broad.

Commissioners on Tuesday approved the revised ordinance without the broad language.

"You can't make just presence a crime," Aiken said. "It is absolutely nothing more but a feel-good law."

He said it could still be unconstitutional if it restricts where a person can travel. What if someone is in a park and children show up?

He likened it somewhat to recent Arizona legislation that allows law enforcement to make people prove they are citizens.

"Does it give law enforcement the authority to go up to somebody on the beach and prove they're not a registered sex offender?" Aiken wondered. "How far does it go?" ..Source.. PAT GILLESPIE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Do sex offender boundary laws work?

Just because a law is popular doesn't make it effective! These laws are nothing more than banishment of undesirables, child safety is a ruse perpetrated by politicians. Finally, there isn't an ounce of evidence that these laws enhance public safety, in fact, by diverting taxpayer money to these laws, there is less for normal law enforcement.

4-5-2010 North Dakota:

Piepkorn says yes, but those who’ve studied issue disagree: There’s no doubt that a ban on sex offenders living within 1,200 feet of Fargo’s schools or parks would be popular. Dave Piep­korn, the city commissioner backing that idea, said the reaction he’s had from Fargo residents has been “overwhelmingly positive,” and in a nonscientific online Forum poll last week, 86 percent of the 2,188 votes were in favor.

There’s no doubt that a ban on sex offenders living within 1,200 feet of Fargo’s schools or parks would be popular.

Dave Piep­korn, the city commissioner backing that idea, said the reaction he’s had from Fargo residents has been “overwhelmingly positive,” and in a nonscientific online Forum poll last week, 86 percent of the 2,188 votes were in favor.

“The majority of people have said it makes sense,” Piepkorn said.

The enthusiasm explains why sex offender residency laws have grown quickly in the decade or so since they were first enacted. A report by the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the Department of Justice, states that from 2000 to 2008, the number of states with restrictions for sex offender housing went from five to nearly 30.

Yet Fargo’s police chief and the head of an area nonprofit that works with victims of sexual violence are both dubious about the effectiveness of such laws. And they’re not alone.

Studies of sex offender residency laws in areas they’ve been tried haven’t found any positive effect on recidivism rates. Authorities who deal with sex offenders – police, prosecutors and probation and parole agents – often end up opposing the buffer-zone restrictions.

“It’s almost totally driven by emotion,” said Richard Tewksbury, a University of Louisville professor of justice administration who studies sex offender laws. “Without exception, all the research shows there is no impact.”

Pushed to margins

Gary Davis is a Level III sex offender, a 65-year-old who must register for life because of two indecent exposure convictions in North Dakota, the latest in Cass County in 2007. Level III is the designation for sex offenders who are deemed the highest risk to re-offend.

He had difficulty finding a place to live at first, being turned down by a handful of landlords before ending up at 1122 2nd Ave. S. in Fargo – one of four Level III offenders in the apartment building.

Davis has no complaints about the small apartment, though he said his hopes for rehabilitation would be better if he were elsewhere.

“You’re in the place you are trying to get out of,” he said.

It doesn’t appear the building Davis lives in would be affected by the 1,200-foot law. City planners are still working on a map plotting the restricted areas, but a similar map produced by The Forum indicates the largest swaths of area left open to sex offenders would be downtown and in the industrial parts of the city straddling Main Avenue between Interstate 29 and 25th Street. Much of the city would be off-limits.

That’s one of the troubles with broad bans on where sex offenders can live, said Tewksbury. If they can find a place at all, it’s in “the poorest, most disorganized, least desirable areas of the city,” he said, where it is more common for children to be unsupervised.

It also tends to make it harder for sex offenders to access treatment, find jobs and have a support system – all keys to crime-free life.

“We simply make life more difficult in the important ways,” Tewksbury said.

Davis agreed, saying that isolation makes his recovery much harder.

“The only way to be back in society is to be around people,” he said.

If the law pushes offenders away, Piepkorn said, that’s fine with him. That’s partially the point, he said.

“I think we’d be sending a message that convicted sex offenders aren’t welcome in Fargo. That’s the bottom line, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that.”

Police Chief Keith Ternes said that sort of take on sex criminals is overhyped.

“We’ve put a scarlet letter on those people,” he said. “It’s not the only offender out there to be concerned about.”

Hardship without upside

Ternes is worried the 1,200-foot ordinance could lead more offenders to stop registering, as they must do under state law, which would in turn take up more of the police’s time.

That’s what happened in Iowa, one of the first places where offenders were barred from living by schools or parks. The state repealed the law upon the urging of law enforcement officials. It’s a case Ternes has pointed out publicly.

Tewksbury said he has conducted a study of re-offending rates in Iowa during the time the law was in place, though it hasn’t yet been published. Recidivism was unchanged, though the law put a greater burden on both the offenders and the authorities responsible for keeping tabs on them.

“It poses many hardships, with no real possibility of benefits,” he said.

The chief is also skeptical that a geographical separation between places kids go and offenders’ homes does much to keep children safe.

Piepkorn said the law’s main purpose is to protect the most vulnerable people in society – children.

Yet a sex offender who’s looking to strike again can simply travel to those same areas, Ternes said. Also, a study in Minnesota showed that’s a rare occurrence.

That study of 224 repeat sex offenders from 1990 to 2005 found that 16 of them made contact with a juvenile victim within a mile of their home, but none of the contacts happened near a school, park or playground.

Piepkorn said he thinks some researchers “have an agenda” to support rights for sex offenders and said he’s been getting most of his negative feedback from out-of-state groups.

As for Ternes’ opposition to the residency ordinance, Piepkorn said: “He just has a different perspective. I have no problem with disagreement.”

Greg Diehl, the executive director of the local Rape and Abuse Crisis Center, said though he can see the rationale of Piepkorn’s proposal, he doesn’t think much of the 1,200-foot law, either. He’d rather see new approaches implemented.

“I’m not sure that this would solve a whole lot of anything,” Diehl said. “The biggest issue is there are no easy answers.”

“At least it’s being talked about,” Diehl added.

‘A positive effect’

Davis said he doesn’t understand why he would be barred from living near the places children go since he has no record of abusing minors.

“Sex offender: That’s just a word,” he said. “It should be based on the charge.”

That’s also what Tewksbury suggested: reserving residency limits to those who’ve abused children. Otherwise, buffer laws rely on the assumption that all sex offenders target kids.

Piepkorn said he wants to fashion the law based on how it had worked in other places. “You want it to have a positive effect,” he said.

He said he’s leaning toward proposing the city law only apply to the Level III and medium-risk Level II offenders – roughly 25 percent of Fargo’s 155 registered sex offenders.

Piepkorn said he would potentially consider having the law only apply to those convicted of crimes against children.

City Attorney Erik Johnson is researching the laws enacted in other areas and working on a draft ordinance, Piepkorn said. A small group working on the proposal – which includes Ternes – plans to meet next week to take up the issue.

The proposal wouldn’t be in front of the commission until after that, Piepkorn said. He expects the debate about it to be robust.

“I will guarantee that will happen,” he said. ..Source.. Dave Roepke

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

I testified against repeal of local sex offender ordinances

Sex Offender Advocates should study how this Senator presented her arguments with supports and conclusion, then mirror her method with counter arguments, for every sex offender issue that comes up in any state. One can always learn from lawmakers advocates so often try to convince otherwise.

3-12-2010 Wisconsin:

Here is testimony I (Sen Mary Lazich) gave to the state Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts today about Assembly Bill 759 and its companion bill in the state Senate, Senate Bill 548:
Senator Mary Lazich - Testimony - Assembly Bill 759
Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts
Greetings, Committee Chairman Parisi and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Assembly Committee on Corrections and the Courts about Assembly Bill 759.

Assembly Bill 759 (AB 759) and Senate Bill 548 (SB 548) impose the greatest risk to children and families in the state of Wisconsin. Eliminating local ordinances that allow local communities and local law enforcement to do their jobs to protect society would put all residents, particularly children, in danger. Approving AB 759 and SB 548 would put you and all of our constituents in the state of Wisconsin collectively in danger.

Why do I say that prohibiting a local sex offender ordinance in a community remote to your district would put you and your constituents in danger? We have outstanding law enforcement in the state of Wisconsin and they do an excellent job protecting us. As a legislator you know you can speak with law enforcement in any of the communities you represent, and they, more than anyone else, are best equipped to inform you about crime in the community. They know the daily challenges to protect the community. Each day they take on the incredible responsibility of knowing their community and preempting crime. By eliminating their ability to do their job, and transferring that responsibility to the state, you, your family, and your constituents are not safe visiting or traveling through communities in the state of Wisconsin. The ability for law enforcement to fully and effectively do their job is severely hampered because AB 759 and SB 548 transfer the responsibility for community safety to the state. The state does not have the full and adequate understanding of the community. Local law enforcement does have that keen knowledge and expertise suited for their community.

One of the communities I am honored to represent, Franklin is the leading pioneer about this issue. Franklin officials carefully examined case law, reports, studies, and articles from around the country before adopting two sex offender ordinances. Special attention was given to an important Florida trial court case October 11, 2007, the state of Florida v. Schmidt.

During the trial, two expert witnesses, Dr. Jill Levenson and Dr. Chris Robison agreed with research concluding that in the 15 years following release of sex offenders, about 24 percent will re-offend, and that offenders with a prior sex offense conviction have even higher recidivism rates.

Although Dr. Levenson and another expert witness, Dr. Luis Rosell both testified against sex offender residency restrictions, they both find that reducing access to children can reduce the likelihood of a sex offense. Dr. Levenson testified that she once wrote, “It makes sense that risk might be managed by reducing some of the exposure to children and prohibiting them from living near places where children congregate.” Furthermore, Dr. Rosell had testified in a previous case, Doe v. Miller that “reducing a specific sex offender’s access to children was a good idea, and that if you remove the opportunity, then the likelihood of reoffense is decreased.”

Armed with this critical information, Franklin approved its two sex offender ordinances. During 2008, the Franklin ordinances prevailed over nine constitutional challenges, and Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge John Franke ruled the ordinances constitutional.

Today, dozens of municipalities around Wisconsin have enacted similar ordinances. They have made the critical decision to utilize a legal and law enforcement tool they believe best suited for their communities. The state should not be stripping Wisconsin communities of their weapon to protect children.

AB 759 and SB 548 are direct attacks on the communities that have enacted ordinances, and a direct attack on children and their parents. AB 759 and SB 548 violate the all-important concept of self-governance and home rule by striking down laws that benefit the health and well-being of citizens.

Can the state be trusted with the responsibility of ensuring families and their children are safe from sex offenders? A recent, highly publicized case suggests the answer is emphatically no.

During 1998, a Dane County Circuit Court Judge ruled Lindon Knutson to be a sexually violent person. Lindon Knutson had a very serious criminal record including convictions for rape and kidnapping, and was committed to a mental health facility. During March of 2009, a Dane County Circuit Court judge discharged Lindon Knutson from his commitment.

It is reported that there was one assessment of Lindon Knutson relied upon for his release. One assessment, and that one assessment, was that he was safe to be released.

During November 2009, Knutson was arrested in Wilmar, Minnesota for allegedly asking for a church tour conducted by a 73-year-old woman, and then beat, raped, and robbed the woman.

Taking away the authority of municipalities and transferring decisions about offenders’ whereabouts to state bureaucrats is not just risky, it is dangerous. Committee members, please give serious consideration to the stakes. Communities in your districts are best equipped to apply safety.

AB 759 and SB 548 would repeal ordinances in communities that committee members represent including Glendale, Glenmore, the village of Wrightstown, New Holstein, the Town of Sheboygan, Oostburg, Reedsburg, and dozens of other communities throughout Wisconsin.

Think about the ramifications of this legislation. AB 759 and SB 548 are gambling. It is gambling with lives of children and the lives of all Wisconsin residents. These two bills increase the chance of children and Wisconsin residents being killed by released sex offenders, and before they will be killed, they will be tortured. We should be making it more difficult for offenders to kill children, not easier for them to sexually and violently rape and kill our constituents. We owe it to children, their parents, and all Wisconsin residents to reject this legislation, and allow communities the power to keep an important weapon in their fight against sex offenders.

My bet and my gamble are with local law enforcement, local citizens, and local elected officials, not with the state. ..Source.. Mary Lazich (State Senator)

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Bill further restricts sex offenders

While the points made by RSOL are valid that is not how one fights such legislation. "Woe is me," type arguments get nowhere. Apparently proximity laws are currently in effect, and the intent is to expand them, so one must ask WHY? Has there been a increase in crime? Has there been some other problem with current proximity laws? If none are true why is this necessary, laws are not made "just because we can" there has to be a reason behind them. Using children as a pretext for some other personal gain (voter support) is wrong. Not one of those proposing these changes explains why they are necessary, excepting as it seems, just because we can..

2-14-2010 Virginia:

The measure would bar those who committed crimes involving juveniles from living within 500 feet of places children frequent.

RICHMOND -- Legislation that would further limit where sex offenders can live and expand the list of convictions that activate those restrictions has drawn the ire of civil libertarians and advocates of reforming those laws.

Still, Del. Clifford "Clay" Athey, the sponsor of the bill, believes toughening existing laws is a necessary step "to protect the most vulnerable citizens."

If enacted, Athey's House Bill 1004 would bar individuals ordered to register as sex offenders for crimes involving a juvenile victim from living within 500 feet of multiple places children are known to frequent.

It would add school bus stops, community parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, public pools and private, parochial and Christian schools to state law, which applies to day care centers, public schools and adjoining public parks.

The Front Royal Republican's bill would also restrict a wider of range of sex offenders.

Under current law, only those convicted of serious offenses -- rape, sodomy or object sexual penetration coupled with crimes such as abduction and malicious wounding -- against certain minors face residency restrictions.

There were 16,238 offenders registered as of Dec. 1, according to the Virginia State Police.

The lawmaker's stricter proposal worries American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis.

"It's one thing to limit someone's mobility, to prevent them from going to certain places," Willis said. "It's another thing to restrict where they actually live ... There are real legal constitutional questions involved in such a restriction."

Other residency bills passed in Nebraska, Missouri and Indiana were later ruled unconstitutional, he added.

Athey, an attorney by trade, said he has taken those concerns into account. His legislation could withstand a court challenge, he said.

The lawmaker said he narrowly defined his proposal to target those who have abused children.

"The unique nature of these types of crimes tips the balance towards increasing this sort of scrutiny," Athey said.

In 2007, he introduced a bill to lengthen the residency buffer between sex offenders and children to 1,000 feet. It passed the House of Delegates but did not clear the Senate.

Mary Devoy, of Reform Sex Offender Laws of Virginia, said that although the bill is different from the one drafted three years ago, it still has negative consequences for those listed on the registry.

She said Athey's bill, if passed, would lead to more homeless sex offenders.

"The purpose of the registry was to list the most dangerous violent repeat offenders. That's not what it's become," Devoy said.

Instead, nonviolent offenders, including teenagers and adults who send explicit messages via cellphone, can find themselves listed alongside rapists.

And they'll also have a difficult time finding a place to live if the bill passes, she added.

Even if sex offenders don't have a roof, a bill filed by Charlottesville Republican Del. Rob Bell would clarify that they must register where they reside.

Another Bell bill would ban certain sex offenders from being within 100 feet of any children's museum in the state.

And a measure from Del. Sal Iaquinto, R-Virginia Beach, would add language to the law code clarifying ambiguities about when offenders are required to register.

As of Friday, each of those measures was on track to pass in the House alongside Athey's legislation.

Regardless of the final outcome this year, Athey said he considers improving sex offender legislation important, and he will continue to advance such bills.

Although they may have noble intentions, Willis said lawmakers who back legislation that further penalizes sex offenders "tend to ... react by their emotions and react in a politically opportunistic way. That's the unfortunate trap that sex offender laws fall into." ..Source.. Roanoke.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

How often do the police speak -Negatively- about sex offender laws?

2-11-2010 Oklahoma:

This story may suprise you, and then again, when you hear what the author of the law in question says, it may not suprise you? However, consider that the law's author was likely pushing for some political gain under the pretext of public safety when he first proposed the law. With that said:

FOX News: Sex offender zones (CLICK for Video)

A law intended to protect Oklahomans from sex offenders may be having the exact opposite effect. Police departments around Oklahoma are openly protesting the Sex Offender Residence Restriction Law. Police say, lawmakers hoped it would drive sex offenders out of the state. Instead, police say, sex offenders have simply stopped registering.

PS: There is not one study anywhere which shows these laws protect anyone, but there are studies to show the harm they cause. The problem is, lawmakers do not get votes by showing such evidence. Here the police are explaing the problems with these laws.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Miami-Dade further restricts sex-offender laws, eases others

1-21-2010 Florida:

Sex offenders and predators will be further restricted in Miami-Dade County, but possibly face lesser residency restrictions in other cities, under an ordinance passed by the County Commission Thursday.

The changes to its current ordinance affect where molesters can live and loiter within the county and the 24 separate municipalities and unincorporated areas within its borders.

Amendments to the ordinance create ``child-safety zones,'' that ban sex offenders in Miami-Dade County from loitering or prowling within 300 feet of a school, day-care facility and municipal or county park.

Previously, laws only restricted where molesters could live. A loophole made it legal for sex predators to be near schools and any other child facilities during the day.

Sponsor Commissioner Jose ``Pepe'' Diaz said the ordinance will help create a more uniform ordinance across the county and thus, protect more children.

The amended ordinance also essentially forces other cities -- who don't opt out -- to allow sex offenders to live closer places that children congregate -- other than schools. This includes parks, bus stops and day-care facilities.

All municipalities have a 90-day window in which to pass a resolution to opt out of the county's rules, thereby allowing them to pass their own laws again.

Key points of the ordinance:

• Prohibits convicted sex offenders and predators from living within 2,500 feet of a school -- only. They may live within 2,500 feet of other facilities, including and not limited to: municipal and county parks, day-care facilities and bus stops.

• Under a new ``child-safety zone'' amendment, sex offenders are banned from loitering or prowling within 300 feet of a school, municipal or county park or day-care facility.

• A sexual offender and predator is permitted in the park or day-care facility if he or she is a parent or guardian of the child.

• Any municipality may, within 90 days, have the ability to veer from the county ordinance by passing more restrictive ordinances. They are not permitted to pass less restrictive ordinances.

• Unless the suspected sexual offender flees, a law enforcement officer must give the offender or predator an opportunity to explain his or her presence and conduct before arrest.

• It is unlawful for anyone to rent a dwelling to a sexual offender or predator when the structure is within 2,500 feet of a school.

..Source.. JULIE BROWN

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Editorial: Sex offender laws flawed

The bigger issue is not what this editorial thinks, rather it is, where does the state -OR- local officials derive their authority to modify -even collaterally- the criminal sentence after the fact by adding -civil sanctions- which are not applied accross the board to all folks convicted of crimes. At one point all constitutions had a provision that prohibited laws against or affecting identified groups disfavored in society. Unfortunately it seems to have been removed from state constitutions.

12-17-2009 Florida:

While two county judges have stricken the least defensible parts of Lee County’s sex-offender registration ordinance as too broad, the bigger issues with this kind of law remain.

We need a rational discussion of those issues. Our laws get more draconian because it’s politically popular to marginalize and punish sex offenders — often for good reason. Yes, we must be tough, but let’s be reasonable.

If sex offenders are so dangerous that they have to be registered, their addresses made public and their movements heavily restricted for life after their release from prison, why should they even be released to live among the public?

Life imprisonment might do less to undermine a key principle of justice, that once you’ve paid the price for your crime, you should be able to get on with your life, even encouraged and helped to do so if you are willing. With sex offenders, we hold their crime to be so heinous and incurable that we try to keep them in a kind of quasi-imprisonment through registration and restrictions on their movement.

Some communities, however, have so restricted residency that sex offenders become homeless or go underground, according to Sen. Dave Aronberg, D-Greenacres.

Aronberg commended the Lee County ordinance because, while it is overly broad, it seeks to control movement and monitor sex offenders 24 hours a day. Aronberg, who is running for state attorney general, said he is co-sponsoring legislation to employ Lee’s approach — with the right execution — statewide.

“Lee County has taken the approach that should be a model for the rest of the state,” he said. “The state has put its head in the sand on this issue. It’s a ticking time bomb.”

However, the Lee judges rightly ruled that portions of the county ordinance were too broad and vague, banning registered sex offenders from coming within 300 feet of not only such places as schools, day cares, video arcades, bus stops, public pools, playgrounds, certain restaurants, zoos, skate parks and beaches, but “any other similar type places where children congregate.”

Even the specific parts of the law would be hard for a sex offender to obey.

We agree that sex-offender laws need updating. At the very least, let’s be sure a less dangerous offender — say an 18-year-old who had consensual sex with a 16-year-old girlfriend — is not included along with the those who pose a real threat to children. ..Source.. News-Press.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- No decision yet on constitutionality of Lee County sex offender ordinance

11-13-2009 Florida:

by Rachel Revehl

Judges in Lee County court today have not made their decision yet regarding the constitutionality of a county ordinance pertaining to restricted access of sex offenders.

Arguments made today by Fort Myers attorneys defense Peter Aiken and John Charles Coleman, was that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it is too vague and overly broad.

It was passed by county commissioners in March, and restricts the places where sex offenders can frequent. It lists public pools, parks, schools, zoos, bus stops and any other place children congregate. Aiken argued the ordinance does not make it clear exactly where offenders can and can’t go, and does not differentiate between those sex offenders whose crimes were against children and those that were not.

Prosecutor Cameron James Siggs argued the language of the ordinance is clear, and that it would be unreasonable to expect a list or map of every single place that might be restricted.

Judges Radford Sturgis and John Duryea Jr., who are determining the case together, said they feel they have enough to make a decision on the argument of vagueness, but want more information on broadness.

A decision could come as soon as tomorrow, but will likely be issued sometime next week. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- Attorney says Lee County sex offender law is unconstitutional

If this lawyer thinks he is going to get a ordinance declared unconstitutional based on the grounds of "fairness" then these RSOs need another lawyer! How about trying OVERBROAD and as written I am quite sure no one can micro manage folks and their every move who are not under some form of supervision as this ordinance does. Also, as written it would not be possible for RSOs to live due to lack of access to normal businesses that any reasonable person would need to obtain life's necessities.

11-12-2009 Florida:

by Jeremiah Jacobsen

FORT MYERS, Fla. - A Fort Myers lawyer is fighting to throw out a new law meant to protect your kids from sex offenders.

On Thursday, a Lee County judge will hear arguments about whether Lee County's "Child Safety Zone" ordinance is unconstitutional. Attorney Peter Aiken says the law is far too broad to be fair.

"I'm a grandfather in this community. I have two little grandkids," Aiken said. "I don't have a problem in the world with real laws, with real penalties."

But Aiken says the "Child Safety Zone" law makes it too difficult to understand where offenders can and can't be.

"The problem with a law like this, which I call a feel-good law, is it makes the public feel good and feel safe, but it doesn't do anything," Aiken said.

Aiken represents 57-year-old Joseph Comfort, the first person arrested under the ordinance, after visiting a Lehigh Acres swimming pool in July.

The law orders offenders to stay 300 feet from areas "where children congregate" like schools, parks, and beaches; but Aiken says the language is so vague, offenders don't know where they can be legally.

"If you read this ordinance technically, you can't go to McDonald's, because McDonald's has the playground out front."

Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott was one of the law's leading supporters before it passed in March.

"The sympathy in terms of restrictions would not lie with the person who did the violating, it should lie with the victim, in the light of protecting future victims," Scott said, during an interview on the subject with WINK News last January.

But Aiken says Florida law lumps all sex offenders together in one category, whether the past crime involved a child or not.

"This law deals with anybody that's been convicted of a sex offense and has been labeled a sex offender, regardless of how long ago, regardless of the conduct," Aiken said.

Aiken says Comfort's crime nearly 20 years ago didn't involve a child; yet the attorney says this ordinance is like punishing his client for life.

"A lot of these people are living clean, productive lives, with children, with families. It's not fair," Aiken said. "It is absolutely, 100-percent, not fair."

Aiken says sex offenders are already subject to tough laws and regular visits by deputies.

The sheriff's office says it will let the legal process go forward without speculating on an outcome. ..Source..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Where Should Sex Offenders be Allowed to Live?

It is a myth that, former offenders will recidivate in the neighborhood where they live. In fact, a Minnesota DOC study of former sex offenders that did recidivate, found the following:

"Based on the examination of level three re-offenders (deemed MOST LIKELY to recidivate), there were no examples that residential proximity to a park or school was a contributing factor in any of the sexual re-offenses. Enhanced safety due to proximity restrictions may be a comfort factor for the general public, but it does not have any basis in fact.

The two level three offenders whose re-offenses took place near parks, drove from their residences to park areas that were several miles away. It appears that a sex offender attracted to such locations (school, bus, parks, etc.) for purposes of committing a crime is more likely to travel to another neighborhood in order to act in secret rather than in a neighborhood where his or her picture is well known." Minnesota DOC. (Note: Phillip Garrido drove 160 miles away from his home to kidnap Jaycee at her school bus stop. Sarah Tofte "What can we learn from the Garrido case? 9-21-2009)

Further, if a child is supervised by a parent (required by laws in every state. Check Child Protective Services law for your state) then there is no possibility of danger to the child.

10-10-2009 Indiana:

The story about a bus stop near the house of a sex offender has raised questions about where sex offenders should be able to live. Some lawmakers want to add more rules and prevent them from living near a bus stop.

There are close to 3500 registered sex offenders in Marion County and they live all over the place and in some cases within a mile or less of a school bus stop.

There's already a law saying offenders with crimes involving children can't live within 1,000 feet of a park, school, or youth program center.

Should they be forced to move away from bus stops too? The mother of a convicted child molester speaks out. "It's unfair they have decided to prosecute anybody. We don't have laws that say there's a drunk driver that can't live near you or somebody who's robbed somebody."

Note: What this mother says is very true, ex: when a drunk driver is going home from a bar -most likely where they got drunk- they are driving drunk in the neighborhood where they live endangering everyone, including children at bus stops -if during the day-.

But Lawrence city leaders see it differently; they want to add school bus stops to that list by creating an ordinance or something else.

A law could be challenging though especially at the bus stop at East 47th Street and Karen where 68 offenders are located around that bus stop.

American Civil Liberties Union Attorney Ken Falk says there's little if any evidence that proves a new restriction will deter predators.

"There may be a bus stop on this corner this year. It may be moved to the next corner. So does that mean the offender has to move every year, every six months?"

Mapping out a solution won't be easy, but Lawrence City Officials hope to sit down with school leaders soon and come up with a game plan by the end of the week. ..Source.. by WXIN-TV

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

MO- Sex offender challenges state law

Has anyone ever found that, a RSO who lived within xx feet of a proscribed place, has ever committed a sex crime at that proscribed place? I'd find it hard to believe this has ever happened (except possibly by employees of the proscribed place who may live within the proscribed area), these types of proximity laws are plain nonsense and protect no one, they are a pretext for banishment, because the RSO is not liked, not because of any safety issue!

10-7-2009 Missouri:

Retroactive laws, measuring guidelines at center of state Supreme Court case.

Jefferson City -- A Missouri sex offender contended Tuesday that a state law requiring him to live more than 1,000 feet from schools and child care centers is unconstitutional.

An attorney for the sex offender told the Missouri Supreme Court the law should be struck down for two reasons: Its 1,000-foot buffer is too vague, and it imposes restrictions on offenders that were not in place when they were convicted.

It is the latest case in which the Supreme Court is faced with deciding how to implement new sex offender policies for people convicted of prior sex offenses. Previously, the high court has held the buffer zone could not be enforced against people who already were living near schools because Missouri's constitution bars "retroactive" laws.

Missouri in 2004 first enacted a law barring many sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of public and private schools or any child-care facilities. The ban applies to any location where the sex offender sleeps.

Violators face up to four years in prison the first time and 15 years for repeat offenses.

The issue Tuesday involved a sex offender whose offenses came before the residency restrictions but who did not attempt to move near a child-care facility until several years after the buffer zone was created. The case also focused on how the 1,000-foot limitation should be measured.

The sex offender -- identified in court only by his initials "F.R." -- was convicted of five felony sex crimes in 1999 and notified the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department of his plans to move into his fiancee's home in the St. Louis suburb of O'Fallon. Police initially approved the move, but several days later when neighbors complained, "F.R." was told he had two days to move out or that he would be arrested.

That was because the property line for the O'Fallon home is 913 feet from the property line of the Kid's Academy child-care facility. But the corners of the home and child-care center are 1,078 feet apart, and the front doors for the two buildings are 1,097 feet apart.

Attorney Michael Gross, who represented the sex offender during oral arguments, said living restrictions for "F.R." are unconstitutional because they were not in place when he was convicted. Gross also argued that the law is unclear about whether the 1,000-foot buffer should be measured from building to building or from lot line to lot line.

Gross said there is a fundamental right for residents to travel freely and live where they wish with some limits.

"F.R.'s ability to enjoy that right was diminished by this law for no reason except for the fact that in 1999 he was convicted of a sex offense," Gross said.

After the hearing, Gross declined to say where his client currently lives.

During oral arguments, judges pointed out that the 1,000-foot buffer zone didn't affect where "F.R." was living when it was enacted and only became an issue when in 2008 he tried to move.

Judge Laura Denvir Stith questioned whether the sex offender living restrictions had any more effect upon "F.R." than other new laws. She said barring a law that creates new restrictions or requires new actions would make it impossible for the legislature to ever pass legislation.

Robert Hoeynck, the assistant counselor for St. Charles County, said the circumstances with "F.R." were different from other cases because the living restrictions did not force him to move.

"There's no legal right to live in the property at the time," Hoeynck said.

Hoeynck said that the 1,000-foot buffer zone should be measured from lot line to lot line because children attending a school or child-care center likely have access to most of that facility's property.

Likewise, homeowners have access to their entire parcel and are not restricted to the building.

The Missouri attorney general's office, in a written argument submitted to support St. Charles County, likened the buffer zone to a new local zoning ordinance that can bar previously permitted behavior. ..Source.. by Chris Blank

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

IN- Sex offenders vacating LaSalle Hotel

Has anyone ever found that, a RSO who lived within xx feet of a proscribed place, has ever committed a sex crime at that proscribed place? I'd find it hard to believe this has ever happened (except possibly by employees of the proscribed place who may live within the proscribed area), these types of proximity laws are plain nonsense and protect no one, they are a pretext for banishment because the RSO is not liked not because of any safety issue!

10-6-2009 Indiana:

Hammond Hotel too close to park bike path, officials now say

HAMMOND | Law enforcement officers have notified 12 registered sex offenders they no longer can reside at the LaSalle Hotel on Hohman Avenue in downtown Hammond.

LaSalle owner Louis Karubas on Monday confirmed last Wednesday's visit to the hotel by Lake County Sheriff's Department Police Lt. Brian Marsh; Yvette Salinas, parole district supervisor with the Indiana Department of Correction; and parole officer John Larson.

But it was a nearby bike trail maintained by the Hammond Parks & Recreation Department -- not the close proximity of the city's proposed new charter school -- that law enforcement officers gave as their reason for ordering the sex offenders to vacate the hotel.

A re-measurement of the distance between the bike trail and the hotel had found the distance to be 780 feet. State law prohibits certain sex offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of public parks and schools.

The city's proposed new charter school will be located less than 500 feet from the hotel. As The Times reported Monday, the hotel appeared on a housing referral list the Indiana Department of Correction distributed to sex offenders being released from prison.

Douglas Garrison, spokesman for the Department of Correction, said county police notified the state last Wednesday the hotel's distance from the bike path fell short of the 1,000-foot limit.

Garrison said county police had been alerted to the error through an anonymous telephone call, but sheriff's spokesman Michael Higgins said the discovery came about through an investigation Marsh conducted. The investigation was unrelated to last week's raid on unregistered sex offenders, Higgins said.

Hammond police had re-measured the distance between the park bike path and the hotel Sept. 23 at the request of county police, which led to the 12 men being told to move, Higgins said.

Though the DOC's Garrison said he had been told the men would be gone by this Saturday, Karubas said he asked everyone to prepare to leave sooner.

"I'm getting everyone out by Wednesday," Karubas said. "That's all I can say."

Karubas said he had never been contacted by city or school officials about there being any concerns about the hotel.

Since word spread recently of his accepting DOC parolees who had been charged with sex offenses, Karubas said he has received four offers to buy the hotel. He declined to identify the potential buyers. "I don't want to sell now," he said of the hotel he has operated for 40 years.

He questioned why the organizers of the charter school had never contacted him.

"I was never told anything about the charter school project ever or anything else for downtown," Karubas said.

Neither was Rick Sloan, owner of the Good Stuff Store, a gift and novelty shop next door to the hotel. Sloan confirmed his shop specializes in adult items commonly seen at bachelor and bachelorette parties.

The store, which also sells standard giftware such as music boxes and picture frames, has been operating at the site since 1935, Sloan said.

City consultant Tom Dabertin, the spokesman for the charter school project and a board member, said he had no personal knowledge of the hotel being found too close to park property, nor did he have knowledge of the adult material sold by Good Stuff.

He referred the matter to City Attorney Kristina Kantar, who did not respond to a telephone call from The Times. ..Source.. by Susan Brown

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Sex offender charged with being on church property

Here is another North Carolina fiasco, see my comments in next article, its about the same law. Written in a way that can be misunderstood, lawmakers simply do not care!

9-4-2009 North Carolina:

MOUNT HOLLY — A registered sex offender was charged Wednesday for allegedly going onto church property.

Larry Randolph Grooms of Alwran Road, Mount Holly, allegedly went onto the property of New Covenant United Methodist Church on July 21.

The Jessica Lunsford Act, signed in Gastonia by former Gov. Mike Easley July 28, 2008, banned sex offenders from being “at any place where minors gather for regularly scheduled educational, recreational or social programs.”

The 50-year-old man was charged with sex offender on child premises. He was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond Thursday.

Grooms was incarcerated for more than three years on a sex offense and an indecent liberties with a child charge in 1997. He was also convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon in April 2007, according to the North Carolina Department of Correction Web site. ..Source.. by Gaston Gazette

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

NC- Sex Offender Takes Concerns About New Law To Legislator

Important here are the lawmaker's comments: In essence, he is not responsible if someone MISREADS the law he wrote. Hey world do you have your ESP working, because it appears here thats the only way to understand how he wrote the law! Lets see, what channel or frequency do I tune in to, to get into his mind? Even qualified lawyers are having troubles, the average person has no chance. SOunds like he needs to hear from ALL of the public..

9-4-2009 North Carolina:

GASTONIA, N.C. -- A knock with no response at a legislator’s door was not enough for Kristy Hammonds on Wednesday.

Hammonds is a sex offender who was told this week that she would be arrested if she returned to Wilkes Community College. A new addition to the Jessica Lunsford Act makes it illegal for sex offenders to go the college where high school students take some classes.

“If I were a murderer or rapist, I could go to college. But people like me can't go to college,” she said.

Three years ago, Hammonds pleaded no contest to misdemeanor sexual battery of 14-year-old. She then made headlines as one of the Conover Domino's workers who did strange thing with pizza dough and posted video of it online.

She said she has changed, and now she is the victim of bad legislation.

“My civil rights are broken so someone is going to have to pay for that,” she said. “I have to provide a future for a baby.”

So Wednesday she grabbed her daughter and left her Taylorsville home to head to the Gastonia office of Senator David Hoyle, the sponsor of Jessica’s Law.

When she got no answer at the office, she called his cell phone.

“Only thing I can tell you to do is get a lawyer,” Hoyle said.

“He's telling me I should sue the school because of a law he made. I don't think that's right,” Hammonds responded.

Eyewitness News also called Hoyle. He said the law wasn't intended to keep people like Hammonds out of school.

“Any law was pass, none of them are perfect,” he said.

He said he is only responsible for passing the law, not enforcing it.

“If it's justifiable it needs to be changed, yes sir we'll change it,” Hoyle said.

The General Assembly won't meet until May, however.

Eyewitness News has asked a lot of questions about the new law and how other colleges are handling it in the Charlotte area. Central Piedmont Community College and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte responded Wednesday and said neither is actively enforcing the law.

A spokesperson at Central Piedmont said the school does not ask about criminal history and doesn't know if they have sex offenders on campus. The representative said it's up to the sex offender to come forward and take himself or herself out of any situation where minors are present.

Eleventh and 12th-grade high school students are on campus regularly in dual-enrollment programs.

A spokesperson for UNCC said the school is not removing sex offenders from campus, either, but they do ask students to divulge their criminal history. Students are not obligated to do so, however.

Attorneys at the school said they still have questions about the law. ..Source.. by Ken Lemon.

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

FL- Sex offender challenges "child safety zones"

In an earlier report (Feb) Sheriff Scott wanted these bans and somehow he apparently got them enacted.

8-25-2009 Florida:

A convicted sex offender is challenging Lee County's "child safety zones"-- the ordinance that keeps sex offenders 500 feet away from anywhere with children in Lee County.

The offender's attorney tells WINK news that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
Parents say sex offenders give up their rights the minute they are convicted.

Lee County, FLA - Attorney Peter Aiken represents Joesph Comfort, the first man arrested for violating the "child safety zone" in Lee County.

"It's basically a feel good law. It's made to make the public feel good because everybody hates sex offenders," said Aiken.

Comfort was at a Lehigh Acres pool in July and was arrested.

"We've passed an ordinance that makes it just mere presence a crime," said Aiken.

Aiken filed a motion Tuesday, on behalf of Comfort, challenging the law.
He says it's a violation of rights and the "safety zones" are too vague to enforce.

The ordinance makes it illegal for sex offender's to be within 500 feet of places like parks, pools, or beaches.

Parents tell WINK news they strongly support the zones.

"They can go right to jail--that's a place for them," said Cape Coral mother Jessica Hafer.

"I think you lose those rights when you become a predator," said mother Laura Bruckman.

"If you talk to any sex offender they say there is no cure for them--they always have those desires. They need to be kept away from children," said Richard Jones.

Aiken says he doesn't think the safety zones are the answer because, according to his research, 80% of offenders don't come from out in the community--but inside the home.

"I've got grand kids--I want my grand kids protected. There are laws to do that--these laws don't do anything," said Aiken.

We received a comment from Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott regarding the challenge.
Sheriff Scott says "As long as there are laws there will be challenges to them. We stand fast by our efforts to protect the most vulnerable among us." ..Source.. by WINK News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...