11-2-2011 Georgia:
ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) - A CBS Atlanta News investigation has uncovered that hundreds of potentially dangerous sex offenders have been removed from Georgia's sex offender registry. Those criminals are unable to be tracked, and in many cases, the records of their horrific crimes have been wiped clean.
The criminals removed from the sex offender registry include child molesters and those convicted of aggravated sodomy and rape.
But if you think you can log onto the Georgia sex offender registry to find those convicts living in your neighborhood, you're wrong. Under new Georgia laws, you may have no way knowing they are living next door.
CBS Atlanta's Chief Investigative Reporter Wendy Saltzman asked John Bankhead, the spokesman for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, how someone would know if a child molester was living next door to them.
"You don't, if that person is no longer on the registry," said Bankhead.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation confirmed to CBS Atlanta that for a variety of reasons, 809 sex offenders have been removed from the state's registry in the last 15 months.
More than 400 have been removed because they were convicted of misdemeanor crimes. Under Georgia's new law, they are allowed to be released once they complete their sentence.
Some sex offenders were sentenced as first offenders - even in brutal cases where there were multiple victims.
Other sex offenders petitioned a judge to be released from the registry, and CBS Atlanta found even child molesters have successfully petitioned for their removal.
Robert Anderson was one of those convicted sex offenders. In 2002, Anderson was charged with child molestation, aggravated child molestation and rape.
CBS Atlanta spoke to the woman whom Anderson assaulted as a child.
"It started when I was five, and happened all the way until I was 10," said "KiKi," Anderson's victim.
For a period of five years, Anderson molested KiKi hundreds of times. He was the step-father she should have trusted, but feared instead.
"I am lucky because I am alive," she said. "And he didn't kill me or something. Who's to say the next person he won't do that to?"
Anderson is now out of jail, and surprisingly, his criminal history has disappeared from Georgia's sex offender registry.
"To think he is just out and no one knows where he is, it is scary," she said. "He could do it again, and he probably will, if he hasn't already."
CBS Atlanta checked multiple addresses listed for Anderson, but he has seemingly disappeared and could be living right next door to you.
Richard Kelly, another convicted sex offender, was found guilty on two counts of aggravated child molestation for molesting two young kids.
CBS Atlanta spoke with one of Kelly's victims who was just 3-years-old when Kelly, his babysitter, molested him and his sister.
"He is a menace to society right now," said the victim, who didn't want to be identified. "He is a risk to everyone in sight."
Kelly was released in 2007, and now he's nowhere to be found.
Saltzman asked Kelly's victim is he thought Kelly should have been left off the registry.
"I don't think he should have been allowed out of jail," said the victim. "Those should be the people that they give life (in prison)."
Saltzman tracked down other sex offenders who are petitioning the courts claiming they should be off the list, like Michael Tutt, who was convicted of sexually assaulting a child.
Saltzman asked him why he thought he should be allowed off the registry.
"I don't have to talk about this," Tutt replied before shutting the door in Saltzman's face.
Saltzman also talked to the mother of Kelvin Atkinson, a sex offender who pled guilty to one count of child molestation, although investigators believe actually raped several victims.
"Do you think it is safe for him to be off the sex offender registry with other kids?" Saltzman asked Atkinson's mom.
"I have no comment for you or anybody else, so get away from my door," she replied.
Another convicted offender, Charlton Green, was found guilty of sodomy after having sexual relations with an juvenile boy.
"It's not like I am a monster or anything," Green told Saltzman. "It is just like I am doing everything that everyone else around here is doing."
Tracy Alvord, the Executive Director of Georgia's Sex Offender Review Board, admits most people have no idea they may have a convicted sex offender living right next door, next to their child's bus stop or by their school.
"They are no longer being monitored in any kind of way, so they can do whatever they want to do," said Alvord.
Once these offenders are removed from the registry, there is no way to track them, and no one is watching what they are doing.
Saltzman asked Alvord how can someone convicted of child molestation could be removed from the registry.
"And they do ask me that, and I say, ‘I don't remove them from the registry,'" said Alvord.
Those offenders are removed by law, or under the direction of a judge. ..Source.. by Wendy Saltzman
November 2, 2011
More than 800 sex offenders released from Georgia registry
February 6, 2011
Texas in final stages to allow some sex offenders to deregister from list
2-6-2011 Texas:
Texas is in the final stages of implementing a new program that will allow some sex offenders to deregister from the lifetime list, after an, as of yet, unspecified amount of time and counseling.
The Council on Sex Offender Treatment will meet Feb. 26 to discuss the final stages of establishing guidelines and protocol to evaluate low-level sex offenders. Once the training for the counselors are in place, a spokesperson said, within months, evaluation specialists will begin seeing potential candidates.
"This is a more common sense approach, we have to balance public safety with a limited amount of funds to ensure the maximum amount of public safety," said Allison Taylor, executive director for the Council on Sex Offender Treatment.
She said about 100 new names a week are added to the sex offenders list and database, and the cost of monitoring and managing the system are becoming untenable.
Taylor said the new program will allow deregistration evaluation specialists to categorize those convicted into risk-levels. By placing offenders in risk levels, she said, the government will be able to monitor those that need it the most, rather than spreading out the limited amount of resources on all offenders equally.
"Do we really need to monitor the 19-year-old convicted of having sex with his underage girlfriend the same way we would monitor a 40-year-old serial rapist, pedophile or murder, for instance," she asked. "We need to target predators and not kids caught in the criminal justice system because of the age of consent."
While Jed Davenport, the director of the Midland Judicial District's Community Supervision and Corrections Department, said it is commendable that the agency is trying to monitor higher-risk offenders more closely, he said he isn't sure allowing lesser-offenders to deregister will help the situation.
Although he said he will need to learn more about the program and meet with the district judges before he could form a complete opinion, but said he believes savings could be found elsewhere than at the expense of the database.
"People are now able to go to the online database to find out where sex offenders live in their neighborhoods and are able to be more careful and vigilant," Davenport said. "It's basically a sense of security, especially around Halloween, when parents and kids will be walking the streets."
But not everyone convicted of a sexual offense will be able to deregister. Anyone convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child, sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping with intent, burglary with intent, continuous abuse of a child, prohibited sexual conduct or indecency with a child under 13 years old, will be unable to deregister.
Also, offenders must not be convicted of any crime for which imprisonment for more than one year could be imposed during the registration period; offenders must not be convicted of any sexual crimes during registration; the offender must complete all treatment and must have finished all supervised probation or parole.
Typically, the supervised release, probation and parole period for a sexual offender could take around 10 years before completion.
"Once things are put into perspective, like allowing sexters or someone caught in a consensual relationship with someone underage to deregister, while increasing supervision on hardened, serious criminals, people seem to agree," Taylor said. ..Source.. by James Cannon
January 7, 2011
State police report shows 5,231 on sex offenders list
Would love to know what the "investigations" were about, and if any resulted in further charges?1-7-2011 Connecticut:
State police released a quarterly sex offender report Thursday, showing a total of 5,231 registered sex offenders in the state at the end of 2010.
There were 339 new registered sex offenders during 2010, while 188 registrants completed their 10-year registration term and were removed from the list.
The reports also shows 652 registrants who are non-compliant with registry requirements. The Sex Offender Registry conducted 3,224 superintendent of schools notifications of address changes by registered sex offenders last year.
In 2010, there were 1,263 investigations by the Sex Offender Registry Unit and the website logged 509,898 hits on registered sex offenders living, working or attending schools in the state. Since October, 2009, 6,881 households have signed up for e-mail alerts and 37,179 alerts were sent. ..Source.. by Staff reports
Norwich Bulletin
January 2, 2011
Sex offenders: Some may be taken off registration list
1-2-2011 Texas:
Some of the vast work involved in tracking sex offenders in Texas might be alleviated through an option to remove some on the list.
Chapter 62, Subchapter I of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allows development of mechanisms for the early termination of registry requirements for certain offenders.
The whole, though, is still a work in progress, said Allison Taylor, executive director of Texas’ Council on Sex Offender Treatment.
“The problem is that we have been tied to federal law, and federal law requires the offense to determine the length of registration,” Taylor said. “What we’ve been working toward is basing length of registration on risk levels.”
Just reading the existing database, there are situations, especially when younger people are involved, in which one cannot easily tell if a “Romeo and Juliet” situation is at the heart of the requirement to register, or something darker, Taylor said.
“A lot of these juveniles get charged with indecency with a child, and that’s a lifetime registration,” she said.
Mary Sue Molnar, director of Texas Voices, a group that wants to see reforms to Texas’ registry system, said violent and dangerous offenders need to be closely monitored and punished appropriately.
But with roughly 63,000 people on Texas’ registry, “we’re less safe because law enforcement is wasting time and resources on people who pose no threat to anyone,” she argues.
Molnar started the organization because of her son, who at age 22 became intimately involved with a 16-year-old girl.
“It was so unbelievable that something like this would give him that label (sex offender) for life,” she said. “I feel like they did the wrong thing because it was against the law, but I think the punishment should fit the crime. At some point, someone should be able to serve their time and redeem themselves.”
A relative flood of incoming members in the organization, many with similar family stories, seems to indicate that others agree, she said.
“We just didn’t realize how quickly it would grow,” Molnar said of the organization’s rapid expansion.
The group wants to see changes like those described in Subchapter I, allowing people to petition to have their names removed from the registry, get away from residency restrictions and, most important, the “sex offender label.”
“A de-registration system needs to be put in place — and I think that can be done,” Molnar said. “It’s costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep up with everyone on that registry.”
And those costs could rise because all states must, by this year, implement SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States, according to the initiative’s website, and aims to close gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law while generally strengthening the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs.
Among its additions are requiring recognized American Indian tribes to register offenders, incorporating a more comprehensive group of offenders and offenses for which registration is required, and also requiring offenders to provide more extensive registration information.
A 2008 report by Washington think-tank Justice Policy Institute estimated that it would cost Texas $38 million to implement the program if done that year.
So far, only four states — Florida, Ohio, Delaware and South Dakota — and two American Indian tribes have complied.
A recent study by Austin’s police department said implementing SORNA would increase the department’s workload by 175 percent because of the increase in verifications it would require, Taylor said.
“There’s no money for that,” she said. “States are in agreement that there need to be some minimums; however, you take away the state’s jurisdiction, and it’s not listening to what the research shows.”
The typical profile of a sex offender is somewhat different from what public perception — a predator likely to strike as many victims as possible — might be, Taylor said.
“The media’s portrayal of sex offenders doesn’t accurately reflect what 30 years of research shows us,” she said.
Adult sex offenders typically have low recidivism rates — 12 to 17 percent, she said. Juvenile offenders’ rates are even lower, ranging from 5 to 7 percent.
“The media uses ‘predator’ when they’re speaking regarding all sex offenders, and the fact of the matter is that all sex offenders, just like other criminals, don’t fit into one standard profile,” she said. “You’ve got varying levels of risk.”
Truly high-risk offenders make up about 8 to 10 percent of all those tagged as sex offenders, she said, with anywhere from a 55 percent to 82 percent recidivism rate within two years.
“I think we have taken steps within the state to identify truly high risk offenders, and with the civil commitment process, we’re monitoring those predatory populations,” Taylor said.
But removing low-risk or “Romeo and Juliet” cases from the registry — at least faster — could go a long way toward helping pare down the state’s lengthy list to a more manageable level, she said.
“Not every sex offender is the same,” Taylor said. ..Source..
September 17, 2010
Lead plaintiff removed from sex offender registry
9-17-2010 Georgia:
The lead plaintiff in a high-profile federal lawsuit that sought to overturn Georgia’s sex offender law is no longer required to register as a sex offender.
A recent court order relieved ___ of the requirement, which severely restricts where offenders can live or work.
“I’m so glad this is over,” she said Friday. “It’s been a torment, a struggle. … I am so relieved that this horrible roller coaster is finally ending.”
Georgia's registered sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of child care centers, schools, school bus stops, swimming pools and other places where children congregate. It places similar, though less severe, restrictions as to where they can work.
In 2008, ___ had to obtain a court order to prevent her from being removed from her home on Thanksgiving because deputies had determined she was living within 1,000 of a church with a child care center.
Lawyers for the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta said they picked ___ as the lead plaintiff in the 2006 federal suit to show that the sweeping registry law was too onerous.
“This is someone who was not a threat to anyone and did not deserve the public humiliation of being placed on the state’s sex offender registry for 12 years,” Sarah Geraghty, a Southern Center senior attorney.
___ was convicted of sodomy, then a felony, for having consensual oral sex 12 years ago with a fellow high school sophomore on school property. She had just turned 17; he was three weeks short of his 16th birthday.
If ___ had committed the same act today, she would not have to register as a sex offender. The Legislature has since passed the so-called “Romeo & Juliet” statute, which makes such an offense for teenagers of like ages a misdemeanor.
___, who lives in Thomson, was released from the registry because of a law enacted this past session of the General Assembly.
It allows certain designated sex offenders, such as those who were convicted of offenses now considered misdemeanors, to petition a Superior Court judge to gain their release from the registry.
Other exceptions are allowed for offenders convicted of kidnapping or false imprisonment of a minor and whose crimes did not involve a sexual offense, and disabled or incapacitated individuals, such as elderly offenders living in a hospice.
All those applying for exceptions must convince the judge they do not pose a substantial risk of committing any dangerous sex offenses in the future. In ___’s case, McDuffie County Judge Roger Dunaway Jr. made such a finding.
The federal lawsuit is still pending before Senior U.S. District Court Judge Clarence Cooper in Atlanta. Its primary challenge is against the residency restriction that requires sex offenders to live more than 1,000 feet away from school bus stops. ..Source.. by Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
August 9, 2010
37 are sex offenders no more in S.D.
8-9-2010 South Dakota:
Changes allow some convicted of lesser crimes to be removed from list
Sweeping changes to South Dakota's Sex Offender Registry passed this year by the Legislature have resulted in 37 names being scrubbed from the list.
All 37 offenders had been convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure, according to Attorney General Marty Jackley. That meant the names were removed automatically July 1 from the registry, which appears online.
In March, legislators approved changes to the registry, allowing some offenders to petition for removal and requiring the names of all those convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure to be purged.
Jackley had argued that misdemeanor offenders already on the list should be required to petition as well, but lawmakers overruled him.
Tea pastor Joe Panaia was glad to see his name removed. He operates a ministry called "Bridging the Gap" and uses his past experiences to tell the story of how he's turned to Jesus.
"I've never tried to hide my past, but I'm not gonna put it on the front page of my website," he said.
Panaia's appearance on the list, in addition to his convictions for forgery and fraud, stirred controversy a year ago when he attempted to open a youth center in Tea. He eventually backed away from plans for the center.
Despite the guilty plea, Panaia maintains his innocence in the 2001 indecent exposure case. Court documents say Panaia exposed himself to a coworker and joked about her turning him in. He fought the charges but eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to jail and probation.
A sexual contact charge relating to an incident at a McDonald's restaurant was dropped in 2005. He was convicted of forgery in 2007.
The pastor said he's turned his life around, and he hopes his removal from the registry will help him to continue his work.
"The only thing I'm guilty of is pleading guilty to a crime I didn't commit," he said.
Jackley said Panaia's case is being reviewed based on information from other states.
The Legislature made changes to the registry this year after an intensive set of studies the past two years.
Lawmakers created a tiered system that allows people convicted of lesser sex offenses to be removed by petition either 10 or 25 years after their conviction. Those deemed high risk, such as those convicted of violent rape or child molestation, are classified as Tier III offenders and are not eligible for removal.
Tier I offenders, who can petition for removal after 10 years, include those who were 21 or younger when convicted of statutory rape.
People on Tier II, who must wait 25 years, include those convicted of bestiality and incest.
Offenders on the registry still are required to report their address every time they move and are not allowed to live near schools, parks or pools.
Two petitions for removal have been delivered to Jackley's office for review, he said, but his lawyers have yet to offer a recommendation.
Offenders who wish to be removed must file a petition with the Unified Judicial System in their home county, after which Jackley's office reviews the case and sends a recommendation to a local judge.
The judge can object or sign the petition. Minnehaha County State's Attorney Aaron McGowan said his office has seen a courtesy copy of one petition, although local prosecutors are not required to review petitions.
The exact process has yet to be defined, Jackley said. Judges probably will have broad discretion.
"We're kind of in uncharted waters at this point," he said. ..Source.. John Hult
June 21, 2010
More Than 400 Convicted Sex Offenders Now Off State Registry
6-21-2010 Maine:
Over the past decade, the Maine Legislature has made a number of changes to Maine's sex offender registry requirements. But according to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, not all of these changes have been constitutional.
Last December, the court ruled that some changes made to the sex offender registry had gone a little too far. "There are very few offenses where you would escape the registration requirement," says Attorney General Janet Mills, "the only constitutional question that has arisen, the only legitimate one, was the ex post facto one, where they tried retroactively applying the law."
Some convicted sex offenders who had already been sentenced were told their sentence had changed. Instead of being required to register as a sex offender in their communities for 10 or 15 years, they had to register for life. The Maine Civil Liberties Union was part of the group that challenged the new laws being applied retroactively. "You can't create new punishments for activities that have already happened," says Zachary Heiden, a legal director for the MCLU, "the cumulative affect of the legislature's actions were punishment for people for offenses they had already committed, and the constitution says you can't do that."
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court agreed and lawmakers in Augusta came up with a solution:
A. If an offender has only one prior conviction for a sex offense.
B. Was convicted of that offense between 1982 and 1999
C. Has been out of jail for at least 10 years
D. Has not been convicted of a felony in at least 10 years
They can petition the Maine Department of Public Safety to be removed from the sex offender registry. According to the state bureau of identification, more than 400 people have been taken off the registry since December.
State officials say moving forward, Maine's laws governing the sex offender registry will be both constitutional and strict. "Nobody should think when they plead guilty, or are found guilty of a sex offense in Maine, that they can escape the registration requirement. Nobody." ..Source.. Rob Poindexter
May 12, 2010
Greg Haidl wants to avoid registering as sex offender, takes case to Supreme Court
5-12-2010 California:
Greg Haidl, the son of a former assistant Orange County sheriff who was convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage girl at a Newport Beach home, wants the California Supreme Court to take up his appeal.
Haidl’s attorney, Dennis Fischer, petitioned the court last week to hear arguments on why his client should have his conviction overturned and not have to register as a sex offender for life.
Fischer told the Daily Pilot that the chances of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the petition are “next to none.”
Haidl’s convicted accomplices, Kyle Nachreiner, 25, and Keith Spann, 25, filed petitions with the court too, Fischer said.
All three men were convicted in 2005 of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in the basement of the house belonging to Haidl’s father. Haidl, 24, is the son of former Orange County Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl. While the girl apparently was passed out drunk, the men made a videotape of penetrating her vagina with several objects including a pool cue, Snapple bottle and a lighted cigarette.
For the Supreme Court, Fischer will narrow the arguments he presented to the Court of Appeal. He argued that the judge did not give his client a fair trial in electing to withhold evidence that the victim in the case had participated in similar sexual activity not long before the assault. The woman’s sexual history was protected under California’s Rape Shield law.
He also argues that Haidl should not have to register as a sex offender. The men were juveniles during the crime but were tried as adults. Read the full story here. ..Source.. LA Now blog
March 30, 2010
Law passed to remove some sex offenders from South Dakota registry
As good as this seems, there still are some kinks: Since AWA has forced states to include folks retroactively it seems logical that, the term of registration should also be retroactive, in that, term should begin when the person was first placed in the community, not when this law was enacted.3-30-2010 South Dakota:
VERMILLION, SD (KTIV) - Sex offender laws are to help crack down on those who commit a crime. But if you are an 18-year-old dating a 17-year-old you could find your name on the sex offender registry for life.
That's why one Siouxland state wants to take some names off the list.
Sheriff Andy Howe has his very own link to local sex offenders in Clay County, South Dakota. But, even he thinks the list is just a little too long.
"There are people on the registry who are married because things change," says Howe.
Clay County and every other county in South Dakota will soon need to change their sex offender policies. The state recently signed a bill that will place sex offenders on a three tiered registry, eventually allowing some names to come off the list.
"Previously people were on for life once they came on they stayed on and that didn't differentiate," Howe says.
The new system will allow names in tier one to come off the list in 10 years, for crimes like statutory rape in which both persons are of similar age. Tier two names will come off in twenty five years for crimes such as incest, and tier three names will never come off the list because of their likelihood to commit again or because of the severity of the crime.
And county officials like Sheriff Howe believe this is a good thing for some of those convicted.
"What we have is the ability to take out from those who really aren't likely to offend and concentrate on those that are," says Howe.
County officials say the new law will take effect on July 1st of this year, making the list's like Sheriff Howe's just a little bit shorter.
As of May 2009, there were 15 registered sex offenders in Clay County, South Dakota. ..Source.. Forrest Saunders
March 24, 2010
House votes on removal from sex-offender list
3-24-2010 Maine:
Offenders can request registry removal if their crime was a single offense more than 10 years ago.
AUGUSTA - The House voted Tuesday to allow some people convicted of a single sex offense more than a decade ago to request removal from the state's sex offender registry.
The bill, L.D. 1822, reflects a December Maine Supreme Court opinion that forcing some offenders to register and provide their address to police violates the Maine and U.S. constitutions by punishing someone twice for the same offense.
The first sex offender registry in Maine was created in 1992. More crimes requiring registration were added during the 1990s. A 1999 law required convicts to notify police of their addresses annually or every three months, depending on the offense.
A 2001 change made the 1999 law retroactive, applying to anyone convicted of certain sex offenses after 1992. The so-called "look-back" mechanism was extended to 1982 in 2005.
Four years later, lawmakers passed a law allowing certain offenders to apply for a waiver of the registration requirement. The change applied to offenders with no more than one conviction between 1982 and 1992 and no subsequent felony or sex offense convictions. As of January 2010, about 430 of the 3,200 registrants eligible to apply had done so -- about 175 waivers were granted, according to Rep. Anne Haskell, D-Portland, co-chairwoman of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
The new bill would expand the waiver-request eligibility to offenders with a single conviction between 1992 and 1999 and no other sex offense or felony.
The bill comes following the arrest earlier this month of a convicted sex offender who had successfully applied last fall for a waiver of the registration requirement.
Larry L. Smart, 66, of Mexico is charged with possession of child pornography.
In 1988, he was convicted in Oxford County Superior Court of gross sexual misconduct involving a child under the age of 14. Smart served six years in prison and six years of probation.
Authorities believe he is the only person to be charged as a repeat offender after being removed from the registry.
The Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee grappled in recent months with how to assess the reoffending risk.
"There are some people who we need to know where they are all the time, and there are some people who will never be a threat to us," Haskell said.
An assessment component could not be added to the bill, Haskell said, because it would cost too much.
Haskell said she plans to introduce a bill to modernize the state's sex offender registry and notification system next year. ..Source.. ETHAN WILENSKY- LANFORD Kennebec Journal
March 17, 2010
Supreme Court: Sex Offender May Petition for Removal From Registry
3-17-2010 California:
A person seeking to be removed from the sex offender registry based on a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling may seek that relief by writ petition, but not by postjudgment motion, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
In a unanimous decision, the justices affirmed a Third District Court of Appeal ruling that a trial court has no jurisdiction to grant a motion to remove the lifetime sex offender registration requirement. But the high court expressly stated that a defendant seeking such relief may do so by petition for writ of mandate if he is no longer in custody and his appeals have been exhausted.
Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, writing for the high court, said the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed former high school teacher Andrew Picklesimer’s appeal from the denial of his motion. She agreed that the trial judge was correct in ruling that he lacked jurisdiction because the defendant’s conviction became final long before the motion was filed.
17-Year-Old Victim
Picklesimer has been subject to sex offender registration since 1993, when he entered into a plea bargain in Trinity Superior Court. Originally charged with offenses against two minors, he pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, oral copulation, and digital penetration, all involving a 17-year-old girl.
As part of the plea, he acknowledged that the digital penetration and oral copulation convictions required him to register as a sex offender.
Charges involving a younger girl, who was said to be reluctant to testify, were dismissed. Judge William Lund imposed sentences totaling four years and four months in prison.
Picklesimer raised only one issue on appeal, arguing that the separate sentences violated Penal Code Sec. 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same crime. The Court of Appeal disagreed, affirming in an unpublished opinion.
Years later, the state Supreme Court decided People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, holding that mandating sex offender registration for all defendants convicted of oral copulation of a minor over the age of 16 was unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection because the crime is similar to unlawful sexual intercourse, as to which the trial court has discretion as to whether to require registration.
To remedy the violation, the high court declared that judges have discretion as to whether to require registration for those convicted of oral copulation.
Psychological Report
Following the decision, Picklesimer moved to lift the requirement that he register. In support, he filed a psychological report purporting to show that he had no sexual compulsion and was unlikely to reoffend. The district attorney argued in opposition that the court had no jurisdiction, that the plea bargain precluded relief from the registration requirement, and that relief, even if available, was unwarranted in light of the defendant’s conduct.
Judge James Woodward agreed with respect to jurisdiction and denied the motion without a ruling on the merits.
On appeal, the defendant and the attorney general agreed that the matter should be remanded to the trial court so that the judge could exercise his discretion as to whether to grant the motion. But the Court of Appeal said they were both wrong, the trial judge was correct, and the order was non-appealable.
The defendant, the Court of Appeal said, had shown no basis for an exception to the general rule that a court may not alter the consequences of a criminal conviction that has become final.
Werdegar agreed in her opinion for the Supreme Court. She pointed out that Picklesimer’s situation does not fall within any of the statutory exceptions to the rule, such as those allowing post-conviction motions to reduce a “wobbler” from a felony to a misdemeanor or to vacate a judgment on the ground that a defendant was not advised of the immigration consequences of a plea.
Nor, she wrote, did the defendant receive an “unauthorized” sentence, which could be corrected by the trial court at any time. The obligation to register, she wrote, is not part of the sentence but “a separate consequence of Picklesimer’s conviction automatically imposed as a matter of law.”
But because the processing of sex offender registrations and the listing of those offenders in the state’s registry is a ministerial act, Werdegar went on to explain, a defendant such as Picklesimer who has no other remedy may seek a writ of mandate in order to compel exercise of the trial court’s discretion as to whether the defendant must register.
The justice went on, however, to reject the argument that the court should treat the motion as a “mislabeled” mandate petition and order that Picklesimer be relieved of the registration requirement and removed from the registry.
“We determined in Hofsheier...and reiterate today,” the justice wrote, “that in cases where mandatory sex offender registration has been shown to violate equal protection, the procedure that most closely matches the legislative intent is not automatic removal of a sex offender from the state sex offender registry, but an after-the-fact discretionary determination whether removal is appropriate.” ..Source.. KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer
December 11, 2009
State Supreme Court Removes Name From Sex Offender Registry
12-11-2009 Nebraska:
A man convicted more than 10 years ago of using a 16-year-old girl as a prostitute will not have to register as a sex offender, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday.
A man convicted more than 10 years ago of using a 16-year-old girl as a prostitute will not have to register as a sex offender, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled Friday.
John Ways Jr. was convicted of pandering in 1996 and served two years in prison. He has clashed with authorities since, having been sentenced in 2004 to six years in federal prison in an explosives and firearms case and engaging in a long-running feud with Lincoln officials over a now-defunct strip club he owned. A dancer there was convicted in 2003 of performing sex acts with a dog.
Last December, Lancaster County District Judge Robert Otte sentenced Ways to 56 days in jail for contempt of court related to his 1996 pandering conviction. Prosecutors brought that charge after Ways failed to register with the state as a sex offender, as a different judge had ordered in 2002. That order came after prosecutors discovered Ways did not register as a sex offender when he was released from prison in 1998.
Otte also ordered Ways to register as a sex offender until early 2014.
Ways appealed, arguing among other things that the original order had set June 24, 2008, as his last day on the sex offender registry.
In its ruling Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court said the lower court didn't have the authority to determine the duration of Ways' registration. State regulations typically govern which offenders must register as sex offenders and for how long.
Ways' attorney, James Beckmann of Lincoln, lauded the ruling, saying his position all along had been that the lower court did not have the authority to order Ways onto the state's sex offender registry.
"There is a whole list of offenses in state law for which people must register as a sex offender," Beckmann said. "Contempt of court is not among them."
The Nebraska Attorney General's office, which had argued for the state, did not immediately respond Friday to a message from The Associated Press seeking comment. ..Source.. Margery A. Beck
November 29, 2009
Nearly 100 Removed From Maine Sex Offender List
11-29-2009 Maine:
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) ― Maine officials say nearly 100 people have been removed from the state's sex offender registry two months after of a new law went into effect changing the registry's rules.
People convicted of sex offenses dating back to 1982 were previously listed on the registry. But after court challenges, the Legislature changed the law so that people convicted of offenses between 1982 and June 30, 1992, no longer had to be on the list if they didn't have any subsequent felony-level offenses.
Matthew Ruel, director of the State Bureau of Identification, told the Kennebec Journal that as of last week, 245 people had submitted applications seeking to be taken off the registry, with nearly 100 of those being removed. ..Source.. WBZ CBS38.com
September 15, 2009
FL- Recent Florida Court Decision Limits Removal From Sex Offender Registry
9-15-2009 Florida:
Florida law requires those convicted of sex offenses to register for life as either a sexual predator or sexual offender, depending on the severity of their violation. In certain circumstances, some offenders who meet statutory requirements may be able to have their information removed from the registry. However, a recent Florida court ruling has made it more difficult for sex offenders to have their names removed from the state's registry.
Florida Requirements for Sex Offender Registry Removal
Under Florida law, only a limited group of sex offenders can file a motion with the court to request that they be removed from the state's sex offender registry. The requirements for eligibility are set out in FSA §943.04354 and include:
(1) The offender must have been or will be convicted, found delinquent or had the adjudication of guilt withheld for committing one of these crimes:
* Sexual battery (FSA §794.011)
* Lewd or lascivious offense committed upon or in presence of minor (FSA §800.04)
* Computer pornography; traveling to meet a minor (FSA §847.01345(5))
(2) The offender must have been required to register as a sex offender based solely on one of those convictions
(3) The victim must have been between 14 and 17 years old and the offender must not have been more than 4 years older than the victim at the time of the violation
(4) Removal from the registry does not violate federal law
n addition, offenders who have had their sentences fully pardoned or who have had their convictions set aside are also entitled to have their information removed from the sex offender registry.
If an offender meets these requirements, then he or she may file a motion with the court. The state also has the right to challenge the motion and request the offender not be removed from the registry. The court then may grant or deny the motion.
If the court grants the motion, then the offender must file a petition with the court requesting removal. If the court then approves the petition, it will issue a court order that then must be provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (DLE). The DLE will then facilitate the removal of the offender's name from the registry.
Miller v State: Sex Act Must Have Been Consensual
A recent decision by the Fifth District Florida Court of Appeal has added a new eligibility requirement that must be met before the court may order information removed from the sex offender registry: the sexual conduct must have been consensual.
In Miller v State, Brian Miller filed a motion requesting his information be removed from the state's sex offender registry. Miller met the statutory requirements for removal: he was convicted of two violations of FSA §800.04, the violations resulted is his mandatory registration and he was less than 4 years older than the 15-year-old victim at the time of the offense.
However, the trial court denied his motion on the grounds that removing his name from the registry would be a violation of federal law because the sexual conduct was not consensual. The appellate court agreed with the trial court's decision and stated that Florida law must be read in conjunction with the federal law, specifically the Adam Walsh Act.
In 2006, the federal government passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (or "Adam Walsh Act"), which sets out requirements for state sex offender registries, including who must be included and length of registration. This federal law includes one exception for whom must be included on the registries. Referred to as the "Romeo and Juliet" exception, the only people eligible for exclusion from the registry are those convicted of an offense that included a consensual sex act where:
* The victim was an adult not under the custodial care of the offender OR
* The victim was at least 13 years old and the offender was not more than 4 years older than the victim
In Miller, the Florida courts interpreted the Adam Walsh Act to add a requirement to Florida's list of conditions sex offenders must meet to be removed from the registry — even though the state statute does not expressly state that the sex act must have been consensual.
Conclusion
The result of the Miller case is that it has become almost impossible for an individual convicted of a sex offense in Florida to be excluded from lifetime sex offender registration. Given that sex offenses are defined liberally under state law, it is more important now than ever before to work with a skilled criminal defense attorney if you have been charged with a sex crime. ..Source.. by Stella Law Firm, P.A.
August 28, 2009
ME- Dozens want names off list
8-28-2009 Maine:
AUGUSTA -- Thirty of the 41 people suing the state over sex-offender registry requirements might be off that list under a law change that goes into effect Sept. 12.
Attorneys representing the state, various counties and municipalities, and the 40 plaintiffs -- referred to in open court as a numbered John Doe -- met Thursday with Justice Michaela Murphy in Kennebec County Superior Court to discuss the progress of the consolidated cases.
Laura Yustak Smith, assistant attorney general, said those people who believe they meet eligibility requirements to remain off the list or to be removed from the list will have to fill out an application and undergo national criminal background checks to confirm the information.
The law change affects people convicted of a sex offense between Jan. 1, 1982, and June 30, 1992, who have not had subsequent serious or sex-related offenses.
"This is a good step in the right direction," attorney David Crook said after the hearing. He represents John Doe 21, who is eligible for removal from the registry under the changed law.
However, Crook said, he was concerned that more steps need to be taken.
"There were not many defense attorneys assisting in the writing of this law," he said.
The public law, titled "An Act to Improve the Use of Information Regarding Sex Offenders," is available on the Internet at http://s7y.us/1592.
In the lawsuits, the John Does maintain that registration under the state's sex-offender law violates their constitutional rights and puts an additional criminal penalty on crimes committed up to 26 years ago.
They say they've lived lives free of sex-offense convictions for the past 16 to 26 years, and ask why they are now viewed as threats to society.
Attorneys for several plaintiffs who will no longer be subject to registry requirements say their lawsuits will continue because the plaintiffs want to sue for damages they say they suffered because they were forced to register. Those include lost jobs as well as other economic and emotional damages.
On Thursday, Maine's Sex Offender Registry listed on the Internet the names and photos of 3,350 people convicted of sex offenses, with the details of their convictions, their workplace, school and residence.
Several attorneys told Murphy they were concerned about their clients' anonymity and that the application for removal might be subject to release under the state's Freedom of Access Act.
Currently, a court order prevents the state from publicly identifying the John Doe plaintiffs.
Smith said many of the people who filed as John Does were convicted of sex offenses between 1982 and 1992. ..Source.. by BETTY ADAMS
December 3, 2008
Unfair Appearance in Sex Offender Databases
12-3-2008 National:
Not everyone on sex offender lists are rapists or child molesters. Many people on sex offender lists were convicted long ago of now-legal acts such as sodomy or oral sex. Now that sex offender databases are accessible to the public in the wake of Megan's Law, having your name in the database can have devastating consequences.
Here's how public access to sex offender lists works, and how to get your name off a list if the act you were convicted of is no longer illegal.
Public Access to Databases
Requiring sexual offenders to register with the police department is nothing new in many states, but public access to sex offender databases is a fairly recent phenomenon. Public notification of sexual offenders' identity, location, and other information was inspired after 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender in New Jersey. Responding to the public outcry, the U.S. Congress directed the Department of Justice to:
-maintain a database of sex offenders
-let the states develop their own databases if they choose, and
-require the states to enact public notification laws (or lose federal crime-fighting funds).
The public can browse the contents of the sex offender databases at sheriff's offices and police departments and, in some states, on the Internet.
Appearing Unfairly in Databases
In the fervor of cracking down on pedophiles and rapists, few foresaw the devastating impact these new notification laws would have on those whom no one expected to appear in these databases -- but appeared nonetheless. Gay men convicted of sodomy before 1976 when it was still a criminal offense; teenagers convicted of statutory rape for having sex with their teenage sweethearts; drunken partygoers convicted of indecent exposure after streaking -- these and other people caught in moments of indiscretion have been labeled sexual offenders and pulled into the registration system.
Some types of sexual conduct that once were crimes have in recent years been decriminalized. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting consensual sex between same-sex couples. People convicted under such laws who had to register may be able to apply to their state's justice department to have their names removed from its sex offender database.
Getting Out of a Database
Addressing the issue of unfairly stigmatizing those convicted of victimless crimes, some states, notably California, have amended their sex offender registration laws to exempt people convicted of certain now-defunct crimes -- mostly acts of consensual gay sex that have been legalized -- from being registered as sex offenders.
If already registered and included in any sex offender database, these people can have their names removed. The exemption process involves submitting documents to the state's department of justice (DOJ) to prove that the conviction was for conduct between consenting adults. If the DOJ denies the application, the person can appeal the decision to the state superior court.
Source: Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System, by Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman-Barrett
