tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51625698703901954192024-02-07T05:17:41.102-05:00ConstitutionalFights.wordpress.com Repeal Adam Walsh Act Laws !Informing U.S. citizens of Constitutional abuses by our elected officials, in their irresponsible and unconstitutional implementation of the Adam Walsh Act (Sex Offender Laws, SORNA).<br>
<a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/oh08/petition.html">Sign the Petition to Revoke These Abusive Laws</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger111311000tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-78266952153245278482011-07-15T16:55:00.005-04:002011-07-16T01:53:36.932-04:00Constitutionalfights Blogs Set to Archive Status<p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">NOTE:<br />Constitutionalfights blogs were set to Archive Status and <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">our email address was inactivated on Sept. 22, 2010.<br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">History:</span><br />Our blogs were actively updated for 32 months. We had well over 250,000 readers and published more than 1100 blog posts. Our sole and primary mission was to repeal the Ohio <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/?s=%22adam+walsh+act%22">Adam Walsh Act</a> (<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/?s=%22senate+bill+10%22">Senate Bill 10</a>) and to defeat it's unconstitutionally retroactive implementation. However, our mission to defeat the Ohio Adam Walsh legislation has been accomplished. Therefore, we ceased actively updating these blogs. </p><p><br /></p><p><strong>Emailing Constitutionalfights:</strong><br /></p><p>Our email account is no longer active. You may still try to email us, but we do not check this email account at any regular interval. If you do email us, there is virtually no chance of the message getting to me unless it has a relevant subject line. If your email does not have a relevant subject line, it will surely be lost in the junk mail folder. </p><p>Also, if you do try to email us, please do not ramble on about your personal situation and tell me how bad it is. I know how much damage these laws to in the lives of those who are forced to deal with them. Everyone seems to write me long stories about about how unfairly they have been treated and how bad they have it, but don't do this because I wont read it. Frankly don't really care about the specific facts of your case. But if you have a legitimate question, I may still catch it if I check the email account periodically. Why do you think I started Constitutionalfights ? The answer is: to fight against these laws, because they were unconstitutional. I already know how damaging they are to families and individuals.</p><p>Finally, search our blogs before you ask a question. Most answers are found on our blogs. Use the search box on each blog to find related posts. For example: I am constantly asked by readers about laws in other states, or whom they can contact in their state. We only focused on Ohio legislation. Therefore, we do not know the laws in your state, and we are not familiar with laws related to moving to or from Ohio. If you read the blogs, you will see a Links Page with an RSOL link where each state's organizer can be contacted.<br /></p><p>I am not a legal professional and therefore I cannot and will not offer legal advice. So don't ask me for legal advice.<br /></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/war-300x300.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/war-300x300.jpg?w=300" style="float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 153px; height: 153px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px;" border="0" /></a></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>Victory in Ohio:</strong><br />Now, on the heels of the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">June 3, 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling</a> which invalidated the reclassification of ex offenders into more punitive registration requirements, we claim this victory in our mission. we claim this victory for The Constitution of the United States of America and the rule of law.</span></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Continuing the Battles:</span><br />But this is just one battle in the war against onerous, unconstitutional and ineffective sex offender laws across this country. We have posted countless times on our blogs how these sex offender laws are unjust, unconstitutional and ineffective. Hundreds of thousands of ex offenders remain victims of these laws. But the task of spearheading the battles of these citizens will have to be taken by others. Someone must and will eventually step forward just as we did. If not, hundreds of thousands of citizens will continue to have their throats under the boots of legislators across this great nation. Desperate times call for desperate measures.</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Decision:</span><br />I have mixed feelings about ending our active involvement in these fights. I have thought long and hard about it. But the truth of the matter is that everyone in battles such as these are in it for their own interests. I have experienced this many times throughout this 2-1/2 year fight. When an individual's interests are satisfied, they leave the fight. We lost many of those soldiers throughout these last few years. Even those who were in the fight with us but who did not benefit by this particular court ruling have become dismissive of our work now that we have claimed victory.</p><p>Furthermore, very few of those who contacted us, or followed our blogs, actually took any action to join the fight. Sure, there were a few individuals who sent letters and emails or made calls, but these are just a tiny fraction of those who were affected by these laws. Most people took no real action or got actively involved. Most emails I received were complaining to me about their situation, or asking me to do something for them.</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Accolades:</span><br />I would like to recognize those who did do wonderful and effective work; RSOL, Ohio RSOL, Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice and Policy Institute, Amy Borror of the Ohio Public Defender Office,</p><p>We received <a href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2009/02/donations.html">only three donations</a> in 32 months. We thank those individuals for their generosity and help. If you would like to contriubute, you can still send a donation here for all the work we have done over the past 2-1/2 years. But once again, this lack of help by others makes the decision to step away much easier.</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><a href="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/gadsden_flag.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/gadsden_flag.jpg?w=250" style="float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 107px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px;" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">It's Not Over:</span><br />Even after this victory in Ohio, we continue to see good people trampled on by politically-correct sex offender legislation. These laws are destroying families across the United States. Many good people are caught up in these webs of public shaming created by our state and federal legislators of both parties. Children of ex offenders are ostracized and shamed. Parents are banned from being involved parents. And people are being shamed on public government web sites and banned from living in certain areas or visiting public places.</span></p><p>Of course, there are some real monsters out there. But only these sensational crime cases make the headline news. Most ex offenders are not a danger to society and simply made a terrible mistake. I know of no one in this world who hasn't made mistakes, yet this is the only group of citizens we refuse to forgive, or allow to continue on living a normal life.</p><p>Sadly, the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/?s=%22adam+walsh+act%22">Federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA) </a>remains alive, albeit on "life-support". It has been crippled with various legal challenges and revisions. All those who are affected by this terrible legislation should continue to seek its ultimate repeal. An AWA Study Guide can be downloaded <a href="http://drop.io/adamwalshact">here</a>.</p><p><strong>Lawsuit Against Ohio:</strong></p><p>If any reader is a legitimate legal professional who is willing to organize a class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio, in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings which found these laws to be a violation of our constitutional rights, please contact us (or Ohio RSOL). Because these laws were enforced for two years before being ruled unconstitutional, we believe we have standing to form a large class action lawsuit against the State of Ohio.<br /></p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Logic and Facts:</span><br />If we are to have offender registries, they must be risk-based. Evidence must be given in a court of law to prove that an offender is a high risk. If this evidence cannot be made in court, an ex offender should not be on a sex offender registry.</p><p>Sex Offender Registries should not be public ! Registries of those truly dangerous should be available to law enforcement agents only. Over 90% of sex assaults are committed by an acquaintance of the victim. This "stranger danger" hysteria myth must be killed with <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/?s=data">factual data.</a><br /></p><p>The widespread lies about sex offender recidivism must be defeated. Many research studies have been completed to determine <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/?s=recidivism">actual sex offender recidivism</a>. Their results almost always provide a recidivism rate range between 5 -15% .</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><a href="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/raisedfist1.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/raisedfist1.jpg?w=300" style="float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 160px; height: 159px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px;" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Encouragement:</span><br />We urge all those who are still adversely affected by sex offender laws in this nation to become actively involved in the fight against them. Join and support the efforts of <a href="http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/index.php">RSOL</a> and<a href="http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/groups/index.php"> your state RSOL affiliate</a>. Write, email, call and meet with legislators, donate your time and money to the efforts of those actively fighting, create information blogs like ours, post responses to online articles, gather statistics and spread truth.</span></p><p>And so this blog is now set to Archive Mode. This means that we will no longer be updating it, but will retain its content for the world to read. We will also not be checking or responding to any emails after October 1, 2010. In addition to the above referenced reasons, this is partly due to the fact that too many people in the "network" too often abuse the "reply all" button without regard to whom they are sending emails.</p><p><span style="font-weight: bold;">Final Word:</span></p><p>"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.<br />Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.<br />Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.<br />Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. "</p><p><span style="font-style: italic;">Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)<br /></span><a href="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/holocaust06priest3-450.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/holocaust06priest3-450.jpg?w=203" style="cursor: pointer; width: 136px; height: 200px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px;" border="0" /></a><a href="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/holocaust4nazi-execution.jpg"><img alt="" src="http://constitutionalfights.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/holocaust4nazi-execution.jpg?w=300" style="cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 178px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px;" border="0" /></a><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-79868325654305671642011-07-14T04:05:00.009-04:002011-07-14T04:21:43.063-04:00Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law<h1 style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/07/13/Court-Sex-offender-law-not-retroactive/UPI-79241310605527/"><span style="font-size:85%;">Court: Sex offender law not retroactive</span></a></h1><span style="font-size:85%;">COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 13 (UPI) -- A law on registration and community notification for released sex offenders cannot be applied retroactively, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday.</span> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">The justices ruled 5-2 the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Law can only be applied to offenders who committed their crimes after it became effectiv</span>e, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The court reversed a decision by a state appeals court.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders," Justice Paul Pfeifer said. "It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, 'impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.'"</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Justice Terrence O'Donnell in the minority opinion said the court has said in previous rulings that requiring sex offenders to register and providing community notification in some cases are civil sanctions, not criminal penalties.</span><strong></strong></p><p><span style="font-size:130%;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/Ohio%20Supremes%20Ban%20Retroactive%20Use%20of%20Sex%20Offender%20Law:%20Hundreds%20of%20previously-convicted%20sex%20offenders%20will%20be%20affected"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ohio Supremes Ban Retroactive Use of Sex Offender Law: Hundreds of previously-convicted sex offenders will be affected</span></a></span><br /><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong>The Ohio Supreme Court, in a ruling published today, has declared that imposing "enhanced" sex offender registration and community notification requirements on previously-convicted sex offenders, as required by the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) which was contained in 2007's Senate Bill (SB) 10 is a violation of the Ohio Constitution.</p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"></span></span> <div class="body"> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"When the General Assembly adopted the AWA by enacting 2007 S.B. 10," stated a Ohio Supreme Court press release, "it included statutory language requiring that, regardless of the date on which a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply a new three-tiered AWA offender classification scheme and must include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the prior, Megan’s Law, version of the statute."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The decision was based on Article II, Sec. 28 of the Ohio Constitution, which states in part, <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">"The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws</span>." Similar wording can be found in the U.S. Constitution as well, where one clause in Article I, Sec. 9 reads, "No Bill of Attainder or <em>ex post facto</em> ["after the fact"] Law shall be passed."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The case at issue was <em>State v. George Williams</em>, where the defendant had been convicted for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor—conduct which took place prior to July, 2007, although Williams was convicted on the charges in December, 2007, after SB 10 had been passed.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"Prior to his sentencing hearing," the Supreme Court's press release stated, "Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. Pursuant to the AWA he was classified as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence, and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the next 25 years." Under Megan's Law, his registration and reporting requirements would have been limited to 10 years.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Williams appealed that ruling under the <em>ex post facto</em>/retroactivity clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, as well as arguing violation of the U.S. Constitution's due process clauses and its ban on double jeopardy.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Another portion of the AWA, which would have allowed the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders without the necessity of judicial approval, was overturned by the same court just over one year ago.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The Ohio Supreme Court's 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, overturning the AWA was largely based on the fact that<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> while several state decisions had held that the registration requirements of Megan's Law were considered remedial rather than punitive in nature, "Following the enactment of SB 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 [the AWA] is punitive,</span>" Justice Pfeifer stated in the majority opinion. "The statutory scheme has changed dramatically since this court described (in [<em>State v.</em>] <em>Cook</em>) the registration process imposed on sex offenders as an inconvenience 'comparable to renewing a driver’s license.' ... And it has changed markedly since this court concluded in [<em>State v.</em>] <em>Ferguson</em> that R.C. Chapter 2950 was remedial... </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"Based on these significant changes to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, we are no longer convinced that R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, even though some elements of it remain remedial...," the high court concluded. "We conclude that SB 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of SB 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws."</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Williams does a really good job of explaining how<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> in light of these internet websites that we now have, and community notification and criminal penalties attaching and more periodic registration in person with a sheriff there, all of these measures are looking more and more and more like punishment and less and less and less like a driver's license</span>," one attorney analyzed, "and as that shift has happened, it's become more like criminal punishment, and really,<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);"> the Ohio Supreme Court is the first top court in a state to characterize it that way."</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Kinsley said that through her discovery motions in the case, it had been revealed that hundreds of people in Ohio will be affected by today's decision, and will now be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of appearing on sex offender websites.</span></p> </div><h1 class="hed"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/07/13/sex-offender-law-unconstitutional.html?sid=101">Court: Law applied to convicted sex offenders violates constitution</a></span></h1><span style="font-size:85%;">The legislature's attempt four years ago to apply a new law to already-convicted sexual offenders violated the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today.</span> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Imposing enhanced registration and community notification requirements in the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act against defendants whose crimes were committed before the effective date of that law violates a constitutional prohibition on the General Assembly enacting retroactive laws, the justices declared.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The 5-2 decision, which reversed a ruling by the 12th District Court of Appeals, was written by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">"The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders," Pfeifer said. "It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, 'impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.' "</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Joining the majority opinion were Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Yvette McGee Brown.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Justice Terrence O'Donnell authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Robert R. Cupp.</span></p> <p></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Today's decision came on the appeal of George Williams of Warren County, convicted in December 2007 for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor an offense that occurred before the Adam Walsh Act took effect. Williams asked the judge to sentence him under the previous sex offender classification setup, known as Megan's Law.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The judge rejected that motion and classified him under the more stringent Adam Walsh Act as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his home county and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the ensuing 25 years.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Williams appealed, but was turned down by the 12th District Court of Appeals.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Pfeifer noted that in earlier Supreme Court decisions on previous changes in the sex offender law, justices upheld the changes because they were more remedial than punitive, and thus the constitutional ban on retroactive laws did not apply. <span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);">But the changes in the Adam Walsh Act made them punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.</span></span></p><br /><div style="text-align: left; padding: 4px 0pt 2px;font-size:18pt;"> <span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/story/28845">New Ohio Sex Offenders Proposed Law </a></span></div> <div style="font-weight: bold;font-size:10pt;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/story/28845">WTAP News</a></span></div> <div style="padding: 0pt 0pt 5px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">The Ohio Supreme Court could have new rules when it comes to registering sex offenders...unless the crime was committed before 2007. </span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-45189046285099767452011-07-11T05:07:00.005-04:002011-07-11T05:13:27.254-04:00Is Application of ‘Adam Walsh Act’ to Crime Committed Before Law Took Effect Unconstitutionally Retroactive?<h2><span style="font-size:85%;">Is 'Adam Walsh' Classification of Sex Offender Who Was Never Classified Under Megan's Law Constitutional?</span></h2> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><strong>Case Also Asks If Offender Has Right to Counsel for Classification Hearing</strong></em></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>State of Ohio v. Lambert Dehler</em>, Case no. 2009-1974<br />11<sup>th</sup> District Court of Appeals (Trumbull County)</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">ISSUES:</span></p> <ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Does retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007 as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) on an offender whose crime was committed before the effective date of the AWA violate the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Does the Supreme Court of Ohio’s 2010 decision in <em>State v. Bodyke</em> bar the attorney general from imposing AWA registration and community notification requirements on pre-1997 sex offenders who never received a sex offender classification by a court under the prior, Megan’s Law, version of Ohio’s sex offender statute?</span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">Is an indigent sex offender who files a timely petition contesting his classification under the AWA entitled to the appointment of legal counsel to represent him?</span></li></ul> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">BACKGROUND: Under Megan’s Law, which took effect Jan. 1, 1997, the cases of all prison inmates who were serving sentences for sexually-related crimes on that date were required to be reviewed by the trial court in which the offender was convicted prior to or within one year after the offender’s release from prison. The purpose of this review was for the court to determine, based on the circumstances of each offender’s crimes and his/her personal and social history, whether that person should be classified as a low-risk (sexually-oriented), medium risk (habitual) or high-risk (sexual predator) offender. After classifying the offender, the court was then required to impose post-release registration and community notification requirements set by law for the class of offenders into which he or she had been placed. From 1997 through June 2007, when an incarcerated pre-1997 sex offender approached the completion of his/her prison term, the Ohio Department of Corrections notified the trial court in which that person was convicted. The court then reviewed the offender’s case, assigned the offender to a Megan’s Law classification, and notified the offender of his/her statutory post-release registration and (where applicable) community notification requirements.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Effective July 1, 2007, Megan’s Law was repealed and replaced by the AWA. Under the provisions of the AWA, pre-release judicial review of the cases of pre-1997 offenders was eliminated and the attorney general was empowered to automatically assign all past offenders to one of three newly-created “tiers” based exclusively on the crime(s) for which that person was convicted and assign new, more restrictive registration and community notification requirements on each offender. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">In a June 2010 decision, <em>State v. Bodyke</em>, the Supreme Court of Ohio severed (voided) the provisions of the AWA that authorized the attorney general to reclassify and impose more severe registration and community notification requirements on sex offenders who had previously been classified by a court under Megan’s Law. In this case, the Court is asked to decide whether its severance of the offending sections of law in <em>Bodyke</em> also bars the attorney general from imposing AWA registration and community notification requirements on pre-1997 sex offenders who did not become eligible for release from prison during the time Megan’s Law was in effect, and who therefore never came before a court for classification under the Megan’s Law version of the statute. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Lambert Dehler was convicted on two counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition in 1992 and sentenced to long prison terms. Because he did not become eligible for release during the 1997-2007 period when Megan’s Law was in effect, the corrections department never referred Dehler’s case to the trial court for post-release sex offender classification. In January 2008, Dehler received a letter from the state attorney general’s office informing him that, pursuant to the AWA, the attorney general had classified Dehler as a Tier III (highest risk) offender based on his rape convictions, and that based on his classification, upon release from prison he would be subject to lifetime registration and community notification requirements.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Dehler filed a petition in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas contesting his classification, and requested that legal counsel be appointed to represent him in pursuing that petition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state, noting that under prior Ohio Supreme Court decisions an order imposing registration or community notification requirements on a sex offender has been held to be a civil, remedial order that does not increase the “punishment” for a past crime. Applying that same analysis to Dehler’s claims, the trial court held that imposing AWA registration requirements on Dehler retroactively was not unconstitutional and Dehler had no right to appointed counsel in a civil proceeding that did not expose him to a threat of imprisonment. Dehler appealed. The 11<sup>th</sup> District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of the state.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Dehler sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 11<sup>th</sup> District’s holdings.<br /><br />With regard to whether the AWA imposes “punishment,” and therefore may not be applied retroactively, Dehler’s attorneys advance arguments similar to those offered in the preceding case.</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />(See <em>State v. Williams</em> preview above). They also assert the state attorney general has no legal authority to impose or change a criminal sentence except under the provisions of the AWA that have been voided by this Court’s decision in <em>State v. Bodyke</em>, and therefore the attorney general acted without jurisdiction in imposing AWA registration and notification requirements on Dehler. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">With regard to the right to counsel, Dehler’s attorneys argue that because AWA registration and community notification requirements are now part of the sentence imposed on a defendant by a trial court at the conclusion of a criminal trial, any proceeding to contest the imposition of those requirements on Dehler based on his 1992 convictions is criminal in nature and invokes his right to appointed legal counsel.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">As in <em>State v. Williams</em> (see preceding case preview above), attorneys for the state cite prior Supreme Court of Ohio decisions holding that sex offender classification, registration and community notification requirements are civil rather than criminal in nature, and therefore are not subject to constitutional challenges under either the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution or the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. For the same reason, they say, because imposition of the AWA’s registration and notification requirements is a remedial action intended to protect the public rather than to inflict “punishment” on the offender, court proceedings to contest an AWA classification are civil rather than criminal in nature, and offenders challenging their classifications are therefore not entitled to appointed counsel.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><b>Contacts</b><br />Deena L. DeVico, 330.675.2916, for the state and Trumbull County prosecutor's office.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Jason A. Macke, 614.466.5394, for Lambert Dehler.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=129295">Ohio Channel Video</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp"><br /></a></span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp">http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0301/0301.asp </a></span></p><div class="dottedLine15"> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-51626592035288401842011-02-10T18:48:00.004-05:002011-02-17T00:03:55.334-05:00Ohio HB 77 Bill Summary - Sex Offender Reclassification<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_HB_77&ACT=As%20Introduced&hf=analyses129/h0077-i-129.htm">http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/analysis.cfm?ID=129_HB_77&ACT=As%20Introduced&hf=analyses129/h0077-i-129.htm</a><br /><br />Summary, and Content and Operation:<br /><br />Excerpt:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Court reclassification or classification of pre-S.B. 10 offenders and delinquent children into S.B. 10 Tier classification</span><br /><br />Conviction, guilty plea, or adjudication prior to January 31, 2011 -<br /><br />The bill repeals the existing provisions that contain the reclassification mechanism enacted in S.B. 10 and that the Supreme Court in Bodyke, supra, held to be unconstitutional (repeal of R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032). It also repeals two existing, related provisions enacted in S.B. 10. One of the related provisions extends the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law was scheduled to expire on or after July 1, 2007, and before January 1, 2008. The other requires a sheriff to notify the AG when an offender or delinquent child initially registers an address with the sheriff on or after December 1, 2007, based upon a duty imposed for an offense committed prior to that date (repeal of R.C. 2950.033 and 2950.043; these sections were not addressed in Bodyke, supra). The bill enacts a judicially based reclassification mechanism to replace the repealed, unconstitutional mechanism. It also enacts a provision that extends the new mechanism to offenders and delinquent children whose registration and other duties under the SORN Law were modified as a result of the operation of the S.B. 10 reclassification mechanism and, subsequently, were terminated or scheduled to be terminated as a result of the decision in Bodyke, supra (see "When SORN Law duties terminated or to be terminated under Bodyke," below).</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-74928765116333897002011-02-08T00:12:00.002-05:002011-02-08T00:17:04.369-05:00Fighting Ohio House Bill 77 - Reclassification of Sex Offenders<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >This is a letter we sent today to the Ohio Representatives on the eve of the Criminal Justice Committee hearing of Wed, Feb 9th, 2011. We urge all readers to write, email and call the Representatives listed on the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/oh-house-trying-to-retroactively-classify-past-offenders-again/">previous posting to strongly oppose this House Bill 77</a>:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Representative:<br /><br />I lead an organization named ConstitutionalFights which strongly opposes House Bill 77, introduced by Rep. Hackett. This bill will come before the House Criminal Justice Committee on Wed. Feb, 9, 2011. <br /><br />HR 77 is the Legislature's latest attempt to re-classify citizens who have a sex offense conviction in their past. We strongly urge you to oppose advancement of this bill.<br /><br />The intent of HR 77 is very similar to that of Senate Bill 10, which was ruled as a constitutional violation on June 3, 2010 by the Ohio Supreme Court in Bodyke vs, Ohio ( R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order).<br /><br />The difference with HR 77 is that it orders all affected citizens to appear in court for a second sex offender classification hearing.<br />This is an attempt to bypass the Separation of Powers violation.<br /><br />But in the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling, the challenges of Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto violations were not<br />even addressed by the Court. Had these challenges been decided, they would certainly have resulted in similar nullification of the law.<br /><br />HR 77 requires any citizen with a sex offense who had not matriculated off the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 to appear before a Court for a second sex offender classification hearing. A majority of these individuals had fulfilled all requirements put upon them by the sex offender laws in place at the time of their conviction or plea. To haul them back into Court for a new classification hearing where a new set of registry requirements would be imposed is a violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions. This bill violates the Due Process, Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto clauses of our Constitutional rights.<br /><br />In addition to the constitutional violations of any law which attempts to retroactively reclassify offenders and to impose new and more stringent sex offender registry requirements, there are several other factors which our Legislature must consider when drafting sex offender legislation.<br /><br />Firstly, there is no empirical or statistical data or evidence to support the contention that public sex offender registries have any<br />effect on recidivism or public safety. In fact, the only data correlating these two factors is in opposition to popular conception.<br />Publicly-accessible sex offender registries actually serve to isolate humiliate individuals to the point where they cannot build family and social support systems necessary to live productive and law-abiding lives. Along with residency restrictions, these public registries are no less than a Scarlet Letter which brands individuals, often<br />for a lifetime from normal social life and interaction.<br /><br />Public sex offender registries do not prevent crimes. National media sensationalistic news reports of hideous sex offenses actually support this contention. In recent years, the highest profile news stories of sex offenses have involved men who were actively compliant registered sex offenders. These registries are simply a means for legislators to appear tough on sex crimes and an excuse for the public to feel better.<br />But the harm they do in the lives and families of tens of thousands of Ohio citizens caught up in the registry net is dramatic.<br /><br />A popular myth is that sex offenders have a high recidivism rate. The statistical data proves this to be false. The U.S. Department of Justice statistics refute this myth. USDOJ data reports that "Recidivism Rates of Sexual Offenders (5.3% re-arrested, 3.3% of Child victimizers re-arrested)"<br />(http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136)<br /><br />The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation study, "Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases", concludes that the recidivism rate for child -victim sex offenders (outside family) for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.7%. The recidivism rate for all sex offenders for a new sex-related crime in Ohio is 8.0%.<br />(http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Reports/Ten_Year_Recidivism.pdf)<br /><br />Numerous other studies have reported similar data. I can provide official sources.<br /><br />Finally, this is just morally unjust. Most of the individuals who would be affected by legislation such as HB 77 are those who made a terrible error in their lives many years ago (often times 10 -20 years ago).<br />They have been living law-abiding, productive lives in the years since they served their debt to society. All of us make mistakes in our lives, yet sex offenders are the only group to which we give no second chance. If the laws are in place at the time of conviction, we have no argument. But imposing new laws in order to recapture those who completed their obligations many years ago is simply immoral and wrong.<br /><br />I could continue with supporting arguments but in an effort to be concise, I will conclude. I would welcome the opportunity to provide additional supporting information to the Committee members<br />for their consideration in these hearings. After the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs, Ohio) which we fought for 3 years, we have extensive experience in studying sex offender laws, their effects, and the related empirical data within Ohio and throughout the nation.<br /><br />We urge you to strongly oppose House Bill 77 and any future legislation which attempts to retroactively classify those who have long since satisfied all registration requirements of their offenses.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-16644778772732653552011-02-07T00:49:00.008-05:002011-02-08T18:44:17.373-05:00OH: House Trying to Retroactively Classify Past Offenders (Again)<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/call-to-action-oh-legislature-going-at-it-again/">As we posted last week</a>, The Ohio House of Representatives has proposed a new bill <a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_77">(HR 77)</a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If this bill passes, anyone who had not yet matriculated off of the sex offender registry by January 1, 2008 would be hauled back into court for a second sex offender classification hearing where a judge would instate a new sex offender classification</span>. The result of this bill would be exactly what Senate Bill 10 did in 2008 <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(to reclassify those who should have graduated off of the registry and impose new registry requirements on them, often a life-long registration requirement).</span><br /><br />HB 77 is to be debated in the <a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=98">House Criminal Justice Committee</a> on <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Wed. Feb, 9, 2011 at 9 am</span>. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Everyone affected or concerned with this matter should attend this hearing at The Ohio Statehouse in Columbus Ohio. (update Feb 8: we are told by Rep. Slaby's assistant that only sponsors will participate in this first hearing, and that opponents will not be permitted to participate).</span><br /><br />The hearing is open to the public and opposing opinions are allowed. Just fill out the witness form when you enter the statehouse. If you have any written information for the record, you should submit it as well.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If we act proactively and if we have a large number of people attend this hearing, we can avoid a repeat of the 2-1/2 year debacle which we experienced with the implementation of Senate Bill 10</span> from Jan 2008 through June 2010 <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">when it was finally ruled to be illegal.</a><br /><br />We have a good chance to defeat this bill before it advances to a vote. But<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> only if we have others willing to join in the fight, appear at the hearing and communicate your opposition to the bill.</span><br /><br />In the meantime, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">readers should contact the bill's sponsors and Committee members</span> to clearly express their opposition to this House Bill 77, which would retroactively classify anyone with a sex offense who was not removed from the ESORN sex offender registry before January 1, 2008. This retroactive bill is a violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions which expressly forbid any<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/us-constitution-ex-post-facto-lesson/"> ex post facto</a> law. It also violates constitutional rights of the Double Jeopardy clause of both Constitutions.</span><br /><br /><p><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Bill Sponsors:</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">REPRESENTATIVES:<br /><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Hackett&SESSION=129">Hackett </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Garland&SESSION=129">Garland </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Blessing&SESSION=129">Blessing </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Combs&SESSION=129">Combs </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Grossman&SESSION=129">Grossman </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Hottinger&SESSION=129">Hottinger </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Patmon&SESSION=129">Patmon</a></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Bob D. Hackett, Representative<br />Phone: (614) 466-1470<br />Fax: (614) 719-6984<br />Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Nancy J. Garland, Representative<br />Phone: (614) 644-6002<br />Fax: (614) 719-6959<br />Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore<br />Phone: (614) 466-9091<br />Fax: (614) 719-3583<br />Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Courtney Combs, Representative<br />Phone: (614) 644-6721<br />Fax: (614) 719-6954<br />Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip<br />Phone: (614) 466-9690<br />Fax: (614) 719-6962<br />Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Jay Hottinger, Representative<br />Phone: (614) 466-1482<br />Fax: (614) 719-3971<br />Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Bill Patmon, Representative<br />Phone: (614) 466-7954<br />Fax: (614) 719-0010<br />Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Criminal Justice Committee:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Lynn Slaby R Chair<br />Phone: (614) 644-5085<br />Fax: (614) 719-6941<br />Email: district41@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Roland Winburn D Ranking Minority Member<br />Phone: (614) 466-2960<br />Fax: (614) 719-6940<br />Email: district40@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Bill Hayes R Vice Chair<br />Phone: (614) 466-2500<br />Fax: (614) 719-6991<br />Email: district91@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Nancy J. Garland D<br />Phone: (614) 644-6002<br />Fax: (614) 719-6959<br />Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Louis W. Blessing, Jr. R<br />Phone: (614) 466-9091<br />Fax: (614) 719-3583<br />Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Connie Pillich D</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Phone: (614) 466-8120<br />Fax: (614) 719-3582<br />Email: district28@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Danny R. Bubp R<br />Phone: (614) 644-6034<br />Fax: (614) 719-6988<br />Email: district88@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />W. Carlton Weddington D</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Phone: (614) 466-5343<br />Fax: (614) 719-3581<br />Email: district27@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />William P. Coley, II R<br />Phone: (614) 466-8550<br />Fax: (614) 719-6955<br />Email: district55@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Sandra Williams D</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Phone: (614) 466-1414<br />Fax: (614) 719-0011<br />Email: district11@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Joseph W. Uecker R<br />Phone: (614) 466-8134<br />Fax: (614) 719-3966<br />Email: district66@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Ron Young R Member<br />Phone: (614) 644-6074<br />Fax: (614) 719-3963<br />Email: district63@ohr.state.oh.us</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-27291401005607590792011-02-03T23:55:00.009-05:002011-02-04T00:20:21.717-05:00Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again - Part 2<span style="font-size:85%;">It appears that a similar bill was introduced in the Ohio Senate in Nov. 2010. <a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_SB_316">Senate Bill 316</a> was proposed by Senators: <a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/bill-seitz.html">Seitz</a>, Miller, <a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/mark-wagoner.html">D. Wagoner,</a> <a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/tim-grendell.html">Grendell</a>, <a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/nina-turner.html">Turner</a>, and <a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/shirley-a.-smith.html">Smith.</a><br /><br />Senate Bill 316 is "to clarify </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >for an offender or delinquent child who had SORN Law duties under the SORN Law in effect prior to January 1, 2008</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, the offender's or child's duties under the current SORN Law and the duration of those duties and to declare an emergency."<br /><br />Those who are concerned about this attempt to retroactively re-capture (onto the sex offender registries) all offenders whose crimes pre-dated the 2008 law change, should immediately contact these Senators to voice your opposition.<br /><br />SB 316 Sponsors:<br /><br />Bill Seitz (R)<br />Phone: (614) 466-8068<br />Email: SD08@senate.state.oh.us<br /><br />Mark Wagoner (R)<br />Phone: (614) 466-8060<br />Email: SD02@senate.state.oh.us<br /><br />Tim Grendell (R)<br />Phone: (614) 644-7718<br />Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us<br /><br />Nina Turner (D)<br />Phone: (614) 466-4583<br />Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us<br /><br /><br />Shirley A. Smith (D)<br />Phone: (614) 466-4857<br />Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us<br /><br />The intent of SB 316 and HB 77 is to:<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >"Create a list of all the sex offenders who were reclassified via the 2010 Bodyke ruling, notifying them all by mail, and forcing them into court one at a time to have a judge issue a new Adam Walsh Act sentencing order. It would re-reclassify all of these individuals into the AWA tier scheme, adding thousands to the registry, many for life."</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Both of these bills will be debated within the respective House & Senate Criminal Justice Committees. Readers should contact the members of this committee in order to voice your opposition to these bills.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Senate Criminal Justice Committee (re: SB 316)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/standing/detail/judiciary-criminal-justice.html"><br />http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/standing/detail/judiciary-criminal-justice.html</a><br /><br /></span><table width="410"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/tim-grendell.html">Tim Grendell (R)<br />Chair</a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/larry-obhof.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Larry Obhof (R)<br />Vice Chair</a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/nina-turner.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Nina Turner (D)<br />Ranking Minority Member</a></span></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/eric-kearney.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Eric Kearney (D)<br /></a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/frank-larose.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Frank LaRose (R)<br /></a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/peggy-lehner.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Peggy Lehner (R)<br /></a></span></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/scott-oelslager.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Scott Oelslager (R)<br /></a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/joe-schiavoni.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Joe Schiavoni (D)<br /></a></span></td><td align="center" width="133"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="senatorLN" href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/mark-wagoner.html"><div class="photoFrame"><br /></div>Mark Wagoner (R)</a></span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >House Criminal Justice Committee ( re: HB77)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=98">http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaycommittees&task=2&type=Regular&committeeId=98</a><br /><br /></span><table class="membersByZip" align="center" border="1" cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr class="committeeHeader" align="center"><td colspan="6"><span style="font-size:85%;">Criminal Justice</span></td></tr><tr class="committeeHeader"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Name</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Party</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Position</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Name</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Party</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Position</span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=41">Lynn Slaby</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Chair</strong></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=40">Roland Winburn</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">D</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Ranking Minority Member</strong></span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=91">Bill Hayes</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Vice Chair</strong></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=20">Nancy J. Garland</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">D</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=29">Louis W. Blessing, Jr.</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=28">Connie Pillich</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">D</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=88">Danny R. Bubp</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=27">W. Carlton Weddington</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">D</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=55">William P. Coley, II</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=11">Sandra Williams</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">D</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=66">Joseph W. Uecker</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong></strong><br /></span></td></tr><tr><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=63">Ron Young</a></span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">R</span></td><td class="committee"><span style="font-size:85%;">Member</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-80681702436013719862011-02-02T23:53:00.008-05:002011-02-03T23:55:13.693-05:00Call to Action : OH Legislature Going at it Again<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >CALL TO ACTION: </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Ohio Legislators are going at it again. Just six months after having been soundly defeated in the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">June 2010 Bodyke vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling</a>, seven Ohio House Representatives have proposed new legislation to retroactively revise Ohio's sex offender laws to re-capture all offenders who committed crimes before 2008 onto the rolls of the sex offender registry.<br /><br />Those concerned about this proposed legislation must contact the seven Representatives immediately to express their opposition to this bill. If we are forced to do so, <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/">ConstitutionalFights</a> will return to the battlefield to help defeat this latest attempt by the Ohio Legislature to violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.<br /><br />The newly proposed bill, <a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_77">House Bill 77 of the 129th General Assembly</a> would amend and repeal parts of the existing Ohio sex offender statutes to:<br /><br />"clarify that SORN Law definitions of sexually oriented offenses, child-victim oriented offenses, tier classifications, public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants, and related terms include the specified offenses </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >regardless of when they were committed</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> and to </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >provide for court reclassification of offenders and delinquent children who committed their sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense prior to January 1, 2008</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, and had SORN Law duties based on that offense into one of the tier classifications of the current SORN Law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_77">View proposed HB 77.</a><br /><br /><br />HB 77 Bill Sponsors:<br /><br />REPRESENTATIVES:<br /><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Hackett&SESSION=129">Hackett </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Garland&SESSION=129">Garland </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Blessing&SESSION=129">Blessing </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Combs&SESSION=129">Combs </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Grossman&SESSION=129">Grossman </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Hottinger&SESSION=129">Hottinger </a><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/cf_member_page.cfm?HOUSE=H&NAME=Patmon&SESSION=129">Patmon</a><br /><br />Bob D. Hackett, Representative<br />State Representative (R)<br />District: 84<br />Term: 2nd<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />11th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 466-1470<br />Fax: (614) 719-6984<br />Email: district84@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br /><br />Nancy J. Garland, Representative<br />State Representative (D)<br />District: 20<br />Term: 2nd<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />10th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 644-6002<br />Fax: (614) 719-6959<br />Email: district20@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br /><br />Louis W. Blessing, Jr., Speaker Pro Tempore<br />State Representative (R)<br />District: 29<br />Term: 4th<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />14th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 466-9091<br />Fax: (614) 719-3583<br />Email: district29@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Courtney Combs, Representative<br />State Representative (R)<br />District: 54<br />Term: 5th (includes appointed and elected terms)<br />Term Limit: Not eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />13th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 644-6721<br />Fax: (614) 719-6954<br />Email: district54@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Cheryl L. Grossman, Assistant Majority Whip<br />State Representative (R)<br />District: 23<br />Term: 2nd<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />14th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 466-9690<br />Fax: (614) 719-6962<br />Email: district23@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Jay Hottinger, Representative<br />State Representative (R)<br />District: 71<br />Term: 3rd<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />12th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 466-1482<br />Fax: (614) 719-3971<br />Email: district71@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />Bill Patmon, Representative<br />State Representative (D)<br />District: 10<br />Term: 1st<br />Term Limit: Eligible to run for another two-year term<br />Address:<br />77 S. High St<br />11th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215-6111<br />Phone: (614) 466-7954<br />Fax: (614) 719-0010<br />Email: district10@ohr.state.oh.us<br /><br />We seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio should this legislation be put into law. We also still seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio regarding the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 2010 for damages of those 30,000 former offenders who were maintained on the sex offender registry 2-1/2 years after they should legally have been removed.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We must collectively hit these legislators squarely in the "front teeth" this time to assure that we do not experience what we experienced between 2008 and 2010.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-69829757938973896782010-12-03T00:26:00.005-05:002010-12-03T00:35:32.354-05:00Online Files Transferred to Yahoo Group<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TPh_wxp2tWI/AAAAAAAABL0/xlGy0PL3mvo/s1600/dropio.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 106px; height: 33px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TPh_wxp2tWI/AAAAAAAABL0/xlGy0PL3mvo/s200/dropio.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5546323417046103394" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">We have uploaded most of our online files on <a href="https://drop.io/">drop.io</a> over the past three years. <a href="https://drop.io/">Drop.io</a> will cease services on Dec,15, 2010. Therefore, I have decided to try to transfer all drop.io files to our<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/constitutionalfights/"> Yahoo group</a>. Readers can search in the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/constitutionalfights/files/">Files Tab</a> for the relevant document so that all may access these files after Dec. 15th.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-37740769880207156612010-09-22T16:46:00.002-04:002010-09-22T16:52:46.738-04:00Adam Walsh Act Guide<span style="font-size:85%;">The Adam Walsh Act and its effects on America By Randy English (<a href="http://sosen.org/">SOSEN.org</a>)<br />Download this paper <a href="http://drop.io/adamwalshact">here.</a> (PDF)<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Outline:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />What is the AWA and how does it affect you?<br />Overview and History of the Jacob Wetterling Act<br />Brief Summary of Adam Walsh Act Provisions<br />The Cost of the AWA<br />Is the Public Registry needed?<br />Findings based on the research<br />Stranger Danger: the Facts<br />Is the AWA punitive, punishment?<br />Court victories against the AWA<br />Collateral Damage of the Adam Walsh Act<br />Other effects of the registry and the AWA<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-49281387690959562572010-09-21T02:39:00.000-04:002010-11-07T02:42:14.648-05:00Ohio Sex Offender Law Unconstitutional<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ohiojpc.org/text/home/Sex%20Offender.pdf"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 333px; height: 233px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TNZYC_gWKdI/AAAAAAAABLU/eresjaDCLnI/s200/SexOffenderLawUnconstitutional.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5536709600328690130" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-31874535929899370002010-09-01T13:37:00.002-04:002010-09-01T13:52:07.229-04:00Ohio Attorney General New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/August-2010/Cordray-Announces-New-Efforts-to-Track-Sex-Offende">ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a>: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(official announcement)</span>.<br /><a href="http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/cordray-announces-new-efforts-to-track.html">sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com</a>: Cordray Announces New Efforts to Track Sex Offenders <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(important analysis).</span><br /><br />8/27/2010(COLUMBUS, Ohio) – Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray announced today that his office has received a federal grant that will help county sheriffs keep better track of registered sex offenders.<br /><br />The $155,546 grant will pay for two new programs. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(your tax dollars)</span><br /><br />The first will allow the Attorney General’s Office to develop a phone and e-mail alert system that will send automated messages to offenders and sheriffs’ offices around Ohio, five days before offenders are supposed to re-register as part of their reporting requirements. The system also will track phone numbers or e-mail addresses that no longer are in operation, alerting sheriffs’ offices if the contact information provided by offenders is incorrect.<br /><br />The second part of the grant will help county sheriffs’ offices fund extradition of offenders who moved to other states without notifying local authorities as required by law.<br /><br />Analysis from <a href="http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2010/08/cordray-announces-new-efforts-to-track.html">sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com</a>:<br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Of course this new system of tracking likely will catch offenders unaware and maybe arrested, when they are actually compliant. For instance, <span style="font-weight: bold;">if a phone is shut off because one cannot pay a bill, that would cause the registrant to be arrested</span>. <span style="font-weight: bold;">If a registrant doesn't use his/her e-mail addresses frequently, the e-mail provider will tag that account for being dormant and eventually close the e-mail account, causing the registrant to be arrested</span>. Next, if a registrant has many e-mail addresses each for different purposes, will s/he be arrested because he decides to no longer use one of them? There is a big difference in having a e-mail address and using it, this new system forces registrants to use ALL e-mail addresses regularly or face arrest."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Don't forget: </span> The Ohio Attorney General has still not complied with the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 3, 2010. While 2300 registrants are slated to be removed from the sex offender registry as a result of this ruling, only 1000 names have been removed from the list in three months' time. We must all continue to call and contact the Ohio AG office to force them to comply with the law. 90 days after Bodyke, the Ohio AG office is in violation with Ohio law. Click Watchdog icon below for contact information:<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-91531631749441267432010-08-23T13:58:00.003-04:002010-08-23T14:18:51.878-04:00Sexual Offender Facts<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://blueshifthome.com/miscellaneousfacts.htm">BLUESHIFT</a>: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.<br /><br /><a href="http://blueshifthome.com/miscellaneousfacts.htm">Sexual Offender Facts</a> Graphs and Statistics with footnotes and references.<br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br />"Today in Ohio nearly 25,000 (or 99.99%) of registered sexual offenders DID NOT re-offend. Only .75 RSOs in Ohio recidivate sexually each day. (.75/25000)*100 = 99.99%."<br /><br />"The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse)."<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/THK7WwaqjLI/AAAAAAAABI8/7gbFzpAMKC0/s1600/recidivImage2.gif"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 116px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/THK7WwaqjLI/AAAAAAAABI8/7gbFzpAMKC0/s200/recidivImage2.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5508671293855796402" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/THK7WnsCxEI/AAAAAAAABI0/kP7YxluYPZk/s1600/recidivhomeh3.gif"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 137px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/THK7WnsCxEI/AAAAAAAABI0/kP7YxluYPZk/s200/recidivhomeh3.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5508671291512767554" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-28521253387591803562010-08-17T13:15:00.005-04:002010-08-17T22:30:34.746-04:00Ohio AG Petition for Clarification Denied by Ohio Supreme Court<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-3737.pdf">SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-3737</a><br />The State of Ohio, Appellee v. Bodyke et al, Appellants.<br /><br />"1. On June 3, 2010, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in this case. <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">State v. Bodyke,Ohio</a> St.3d, 2010-Ohio-2424,N.E.2d.<br />2. Appellee, state of Ohio, and amicus curiae Ohio Attorney General<br />have filed a joint <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">motion for reconsideration and/or clarification</a>.<br />3. The motion for reconsideration and/or clarification is denied."<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Therefore, there is no longer any excuse for the failure of the Ohio Attorney General's office to re-classify all affected former offenders. They have been dragging their feet for ten weeks now, refusing to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling.</span><br /><br />See: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/updates-friday-july-23-failure-of-ohio-ag-to-abide-by-supreme-court-ruling/">UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of Ohio AG to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling</a><br /><br /></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">In just over 10 weeks, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Ohio AG office has removed only about 1000 registrant</span>s from their Sex Offender Registry. We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2300 individuals are slated to be removed</span>. But keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well.<br /></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The AG office has refused to answer or return our calls. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">They have now blacklisted Constitutionalfights</span>. And they have told us so, very directly and rudely. So we must rely on you, the readers, to help do the job of holding them accountable.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">We are hearing from some (not many) readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. </span>Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br />justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov<br />614-387-4257<br />FAX 614-466-5087<br />E-fax 1 866 293 1021</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515<br />Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Ohio Attorney General Office:<br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515<br />Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.<br />Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">OHLEG Support<br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Media Contacts:</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We are also now actively seeking advice from any legal professionals who read these blogs, regarding potential legal action against the Ohio Attorney General Office for their failure to abide by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling. </span> Please contact us at <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">constitutionalfights@yahoo.com</a> with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-16446553463185074432010-08-14T15:05:00.002-04:002010-08-14T15:11:35.322-04:00Canadians For A Just Society<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://canadiansforajustsociety.webs.com/">Canadians For A Just Society</a><br /><br />The Canadian government’s policies and procedures for the management of sex offenders have been </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >driven by public outcry over highly publicized sex offenses</span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada, calls the changes typical of the Conservative government’s “opportunistic” justice reforms. “They are characterized by a kind of reactive emotionalism driven by populist sensationalism. This is tinkering gone crazy.”<br /><br />Legislators must avoid such reactionary responses that are </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >based on public fear</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> of this population because the evidence has been unambiguous- many of the policies that have been devised to protect society from violent sexual offenders are ineffective. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >These failed policies must be eliminated and replaced with policies based on the best available and empirical evidence rather than a media driven national panic.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Furthermore, every individual must speak out against these failed policies and demand reforms that work towards making our communities safer, protecting our children, and respecting the dignity of human beings. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >We will no longer accept ‘feel good’ policies that protect no one, lend a false sense of security, and help foster an environment that makes our children and communities less safe..</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />If journalists, child advocates, lawmakers and police services are serious about wanting to protect society, they </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >should turn away from persecution as a means to an end, and demand laws and practices designed to actually prevent crime while protect the right of people to heal and move forward</span><span style="font-size:85%;">; this focus should be based upon prevention and rehabilitation. Much of this information exists. The money wasted on tracking ex-felons who are unlikely to re-offend could be much better spent on preventing child abuse in the home and by educational programs designed to teach children how to avoid abusive situations and potential threats. Educational programs designed to give our children information about how sexual predation is perpetrated would bring a far better result.<br /><br />See related post: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/sex-offenders-banned-from-entering-canada/">Sex Offenders Denied Entry to Canada</a><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-3719862493771204902010-08-10T16:59:00.007-04:002010-08-10T17:21:51.629-04:00OH: Government Collecting Personal Information About Neighbors of Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hG4efFNK6AQas7kmtDkSls3j1kuwD9HEOI6G0">Google/AP</a>: In turnabout, Ohio ex-con gets data on neighbors.<br /><br />Columbus, Ohio — Neighbors routinely get a picture and a name when a sex offender moves next door. In a turnabout, an Ohio sex offender has received private information about his neighbors, including their Social Security numbers.<br /><br />The material was shown to The Associated Press by convicted a sex offender XXX, who<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> was mistakenly given the information by a prosecutor. The data also contain the names, addresses and birth dates of nine of XXX's one-time neighbors</span> on Columbus' east side.<br /><br />There was no indication XXX misused anything in the files. XXX, 80, says he came forward because he recognizes the irony of it falling into the hands of someone like him. "Someone with a criminal mind could really use that information the wrong way," he said.<br /><br />The case also offers a view into a massive and controversial database designed to track criminals with the help of a raft of background information,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> including data on people whose only connection to a criminal is a similar address.</span><br /><br />Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien took responsibility for the error, which he believes to be isolated.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">(yeah, right) </span><br /><br />XXX's former neighbors, meanwhile, are wondering why the government has data about them at all.<br />"They don't need to be running my personal information," said Don Hickman, 47, who still lives on the street where XXX once worked as a live-in church groundskeeper. "I'm not a sex offender. I've done nothing wrong here."<br /><br />Neighbor information is useful to police when serving warrants, making family connections and finding fugitives, said Shannon Crowther, who heads technology services for the Franklin County Sheriff's Office.<br /><br />The information was released to XXX last summer, as prosecutors were grappling with more than 7,000 lawsuits that sex offenders had filed against Ohio's first-in-the-nation implementation of the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The offenders' challenges contend the federal law's stricter classifications and longer reporting periods can't be applied retroactively.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> (</span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">see Bodyke vs. Ohio</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">)</span><br /><br />XXX's His obligation to stay on the registry expired in July. O'Brien said XXX had zealously sought records held in his county sex offender file. After XXX threatened to take the issue to federal court, an assistant prosecutor turned over the documents.<br /><br />"They feared he'd say, 'See, you're still hiding stuff,' so they released everything in the file, lock, stock and barrel, and didn't properly review it," O'Brien said. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"They gave him things they shouldn't have."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This is what you deserve when you allow government to post citizens on public registries. Once you allow the surveillance of one person, you give up your own privacy as well. You really didn't think it would stop at just sex offenders, did you?</span><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This former offender should be applauded. He did the right thing; turning over the information to authorities without using it for his own gain, even as the state of Ohio was violating his constitutional rights by keeping him listed on the sex offender registry retro-actively, which </span><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">has now been prohibited by the Ohio Supreme Court.</span><br /></a></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-14271340449232722802010-08-06T14:49:00.002-04:002010-08-06T14:53:50.130-04:00Kansas: Relief from Sex Offender Registration<span style="font-size:85%;">22-4912 - Chapter 22.--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE<br />KANSAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Article 49.--OFFENDER REGISTRATION<br /><br /><a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=12637">22-4912. </a> Relief from requirement registration. (a) <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Any offender who was required to be registered</span> pursuant to the Kansas offender registration act K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. and amendments thereto, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">prior to July 1, 1999</span>, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">and who would not have been required to be registered pursuant to the Kansas offender registration act on and after July 1, 1999</span>, as a result of enactment of this act, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">shall be entitled to be relieved of the requirement to be registered. </span>Such <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">offender may apply to the sentencing court for an order relieving the offender of the duty of registration. The court shall hold a hearing</span> on the application at which the applicant shall present evidence verifying that such applicant no longer satisfies the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto. If the court finds that the person no longer satisfies the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto, the court shall grant an order relieving the offender's duty to register if the offender no longer fulfills the definition of offender pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4902 and amendments thereto. Such court granting such an order shall forward a copy of such order to the sheriff of the county in which such person has registered and to the Kansas bureau of investigation. Upon receipt of such copy of the order, such sheriff and the Kansas bureau of investigation shall remove such person's name from the registry.<br /><br /> (b) This section shall be part of an supplemental to the Kansas offender registration act.<br />History: L. 1999, ch. 164, § 37; July 1. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-73136505059563302192010-08-02T16:08:00.003-04:002010-08-02T16:33:28.300-04:00International Megans Law Moves Forward in Congress<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_5138.html">H.R. 5138, The International Megan's Law of 2010</a><br /><br />We have warned about this horrific legislation many times on our blogs. We have asked readers to contact their Representatives to tell them to kill this bill. Now, <a href="http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2010/07/27/news/doc4c4f4b9fe0d3e669227900.txt">it has passed the House</a> and will move on to the Senate.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><strong>If you are not aware, there is a bill pending in the US Congress which would expand the US Sex Offender Registry (SORNA) Worldwide. This bill must be killed: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/international-megan%e2%80%99s-law-must-be-killed-in-congress/">International Megan’s Law Must be Killed in Congress</a><br />Contact your Senators !</strong></span><br /><br />See related blog posts: <a href="http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/07/international-megans-law-exposed-now.html">International Megans law EXPOSED! Now, hear the truth ...</a><span style="font-size: 85%;"><br /><a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_5138.html">The International Megan’s Law of 2010</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/hr1623-international-megans-law/">HR1623 International Megan’s Law</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/international-megans-law-moves-forward-in-us-house/">International Megans Law Moves Forward in US House</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/sex-offender-law-could-go-global/">Sex Offender Law Could Go Global</a></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-29511913035119869312010-08-02T14:02:00.003-04:002010-08-02T15:18:39.983-04:00International Travel for Ex Sex Offenders<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TFcLhnemnwI/AAAAAAAABIc/lH-WqkecSr4/s1600/usapassport.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 146px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TFcLhnemnwI/AAAAAAAABIc/lH-WqkecSr4/s200/usapassport.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5500878142017281794" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/">Constitutionalfights</a> will be building a new page dealing with the topic of <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/international-travel/">International Travel for Ex Sex Offenders.</a> The intent of this new page is to provide information to former sex offenders who desire, like many other Americans, to travel overseas.<br /><br />In our own research, we have been frustrated by just how little information about this subject can be found online. Furthermore, no embassy or country agency which we have contacted will ever give a firm answer on whether a specific ex sex offender can enter their country. It seems to be kind of an unspoken subject which no one wants to talk about. So we ask for your input if you have traveled overseas with a sex offense in your history. <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">Please email us here</a> if you have some valuable information to share with other readers. We thank those readers who have already contacted us with their experiences.<br /><br />Please limit your email to hard facts about passports, visas, entry,exit and border checks.<br />State your past conviction category. This will help us to make sense of how different level offenders are treated.<br /><br />1. Did you apply for an entry visa, or just travel on a US passport?<br />2. Did they scan your passport at entry?<br />3. Were you detained or questioned as a result of your past offense?<br />4. What nations have you entered (or attempted to visit)?<br />5. Have you found any reliable documentation about any of these policies which you can share with us?<br /><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/international-travel/">http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/international-travel/</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-81516214693741903862010-07-26T17:42:00.002-04:002010-07-26T17:47:44.658-04:00Messy Realities of Ohio's Adoption of AWA Sex Offender Registration Rules<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/07/the-messy-realities-of-ohios-adoption-of-awa-sex-offender-registration-rules.html">Sentencing Law & Policy</a>: The messy realities of Ohio's adoption of AWA sex offender registration rules.<br /><a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/sex-offender-reclassifications-will-take-months-821976.html?cxtype=ynews_rss">daytondailynews.com</a>: Sex offender reclassifications will take months.<br /><br />A helpful reader altered me to <a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/sex-offender-reclassifications-will-take-months-821976.html?cxtype=ynews_rss">this local article </a> which provides a window into just some of the many messy issues involved in Ohio's on-going effort to get conform its sex offender registration rules to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Act. The piece is headlined "Sex offender reclassifications will take months; One case shows how new ruling affects law on registration," and here are some highlights:<br /><br /> George Anderson, a rapist designed a Tier III sex offender, was convicted by a Montgomery County jury for failing to verify his address. On Friday, July 16, the Ohio 2nd District Court of Appeals voided his conviction, citing the June 3 Ohio Supreme Court decision that eliminated reclassifications under the Adam Walsh Act....<br /><br /> These types of decisions will likely continue during the coming months, said Margie Slagle, staff attorney with the Ohio Justice and Policy Center.</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > “Thousands and thousands of petitions were filed across the state,” </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Slagle said.<br /><br /></span> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Twenty-eight counties were awaiting the Supreme court’s ruling before taking any action on challenges to Walsh</span><span style="font-size:85%;">. Nine, including Montgomery, issued county-wide stays, according to a brief filed by the Ohio Public Defender.<br /><br /> Anderson was originally classified a “sexually oriented offender,” the lowest designation under the state’s Megan’s Law. He was required to register his place of residence annually for 10 years. Under the Adam Walsh Act, which replaced Megan, he was reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest level — and required to report every 90 days for the rest of his life....<br /><br /> The high court’s ruling kept the Walsh system for new offenders, but ordered the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified to be returned to the old system and its requirements. “It’s going to make it confusing,” said Mercer County Sheriff Jeff Grey, who heads the Buckeye State Sheriff’s Association’s committee on sexual offender notification.<br /><br /> Under the </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >old system, 77 percent of offenders were in the lowest category</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> and 18 percent were in the highest as “sexual predators.” </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Under Walsh, the highest category, Tier III, contained 54 percent.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /> That tripled the workload for sheriff’s offices, with more offenders visiting four times a year instead of annually, Grey said. “That’s less time that we have a deputy out physically looking” to see if offenders live at the addresses they give, Grey said.<br /><br /> Attorney General Richard Cordray, whose office notified all affected offenders in 2008 that their designation had changed, has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. He also has included a request for clarification concerning those offenders who did not have court hearings to determine classification, such as those convicted in other states. Ted Hart, a spokesman for Cordray’s office, said staff </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >was manually going through all records to determine which defendants had court hearings.<br /><br />“If they did have a hearing, they will be reclassified,” Hart said “If they did not, the cases will remain pending until we receive further clarification from the court.”</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-33054672990800104412010-07-26T14:56:00.001-04:002010-07-26T15:00:03.615-04:00Bills in Congress to Deny Loans and Mortgages to Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://sexoffender-reports.blogspot.com/2010/07/remaining-bills-with-offensive-language.html">sexoffender-reports.blogspot.com</a>: Bills in Congress Will Deny Loans and Mortgages to Sex Offenders.<br /></span><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(254, 208, 192);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010:</strong> <strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.05297:">HR-5297</a></strong>:<br /><br /><u>Source of offensive language</u>: <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:hr506.111.pdf#page=036">House Report 111-506</a>, H.Res. 1436 "(2) LOAN RECIPIENTS.—With respect to funds received by an eligible institution under the Program, any business receiving a loan from the eligible institution using such funds after the date of the enactment of this title shall certify to such eligible institution </span><span style="color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 151);font-size:85%;" >that the principals of such business have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)). "</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(254, 208, 192);"><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>FHA Reform Act of 2010:</strong> <strong><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.05072:">HR-5072</a>:</strong><br /><br /><u>Source of offensive language</u>: <a href="http://congress-courts-legislation.blogspot.com/2010/07/action-alert-sex-offenders-and-fha.html">House Floor Debate 6-10-2010</a> which says: ``(z) Required Certifications.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary may not insure any mortgage secured by a one- to four-family dwelling unless the mortgagor under such mortgage certifies, under penalty of perjury, </span><span style="color: black; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 151);font-size:85%;" >that the mortgagor has not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> (as such terms are defined in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 U.S.C. 16911)).''."</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-70107026104607726612010-07-23T14:49:00.005-04:002010-07-26T14:49:52.456-04:00UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of Ohio AG to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling<span style="font-size:85%;">UPDATES, Friday, July 23 : Failure of the Ohio Attorney General Office to Abide by Supreme Court Ruling, which invalidated Ohio's Senate Bill 10 Adam Walsh Act Re-classification system.<br /><br />We have been monitoring the ESORN web site since the Bodyke decision on June 3rd. Here is our weekly tracking of the ESORN website numbers.<br /><br />As of 6-06-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,361<br />As of 6-16-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,298<br />As of 6-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 19,206<br />As of 6-28-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,964<br />As of 7-05-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,723<br />As of 7-12-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,617<br />As of 7-21-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,529<br />As of 7-23-2010- Total Number of Offenders: 18,493<br /><br />In just over 7 weeks, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Ohio AG office has removed fewer than 900 registrant</span>s from their Sex Offender Registry. We are told by the Ohio Public Defender Office that approximately <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2300 individuals are slated to be removed</span>. But keep in mind that people are forced onto this corrupt registry every day, as well. So the number removed is probably above 900.<br /><br />The AG office has refused to answer or return our calls. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">They have now blacklisted Constitutionalfights</span>. And they have told us so, very directly and rudely. So we must rely on you, the readers, to help do the job of holding them accountable.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General’s Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !</span><br /><br />We are hearing from some (not many) readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. </span>Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !</span><br /><br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br />justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov<br />614-387-4257<br />FAX 614-466-5087<br />E-fax 1 866 293 1021<br /><br />Paula Armentrout ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515<br />Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515<br /><br />Ohio Attorney General Office:<br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515<br />Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.<br />Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br /><br />OHLEG Support<br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br /><br />Media Contacts:<br /><br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We are also now actively seeking advice from any legal professionals who read these blogs, regarding potential legal action against the Ohio Attorney General Office for their failure to abide by this Ohio Supreme Court ruling. </span> Please contact us at <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">constitutionalfights@yahoo.com</a> with any advice or willingness to help. Thank you.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-62395810186267337612010-07-15T14:16:00.004-04:002010-07-15T14:38:33.818-04:00Sex Offenders Receive U.S. Passports<span style="font-size:85%;">See related post : <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/sex-offenders-banned-from-entering-canada/">Sex Offenders Denied Entry to Canada.</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.sdp123a.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=843&Itemid=58">sdp123a.com</a>: Sex Offenders Receive U.S. Passports (includes video report).<br /><br />(CNN) -- Thousands of registered sex offenders have received U.S. passports, including at least 30 federal employees, according to a <a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-643">Government Accountability Office report</a> obtained by CNN.<br /><br />The GAO report said the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism.</span><br /><br />The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders.<br /><br />"Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support," the report states. "However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders."<br /><br />The State Department called the report <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"very misleading" and adding it "conveys more 'shock value' than factual accuracy." <span style="font-style: italic;"> (Of course, this report is intended to shock and outrage the public)</span></span><br /><br />In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of 1 percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report "fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders."<br /><br />"The report appears to suggest, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">without any foundation</span>, that the Department's issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad," the department's response said.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime."</span><br /><br />The original title of the report, "Passports Issued to Thousands of Registered Sex Offenders," was later changed to "<a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-643">Current Situation Results in Thousands of Passports Issued to Registered Sex Offenders</a>." The <a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-643">GAO report</a> was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana.<br /><br />The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 "is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers ... In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states."<br /><br />The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama.<br /><br />Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport.<br /><br />About 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or "their whereabouts were unknown," the report said.<br /><br />A new law took effect in December 2008 that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport</span>. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO "brought this statute to its attention."<br /><br />"When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it," Grassley said in a statement. "I'm shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It's inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally."<br /><br />"It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators," Grassley said. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(Grassley doesn't know the difference between a Predator and a Sex Offender)</span><br /><br />The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders -- many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider.<br /><br />"Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts are unknown," the report said. "... Several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico. According to State officials, Mexico does not have a sex offense registration system, so these offenders are likely unknown to authorities and their neighbors."<br /><br />The Department of State "has indicated that it would like to study any proposed legislation to provide additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, including constitutional, policy and practical issues that may arise in its application and use," the report said. "A State official said that the department recently began working with [the Department of Justice] to develop a procedure for tracking these convictions and a procedure to notify State of those convictions."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This report answers a few of the questions we have had regarding travel with a passport as a former sex offender. As the post noted above details, we have first hand knowledge that Canada border agents deny anyone with a sex offense entry into Canada. We believe this is related to how the U.S. and Canada computer databases are so well connected. This may not be the case with other countries. <span style="font-weight: bold;">We would like to hear from anyone with knowledge about international travel of persons with a sex offense in their history. We would like to report on this topic. </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Please send any information you have regarding international travel to </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">constitutionalfights@yahoo.com</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If you have a sex offense history and have traveled overseas, please tell us how it went for you.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Did you obtain a visa beforehand? Did you declare this felony? Was your history (or passport bar code) checked at the Entry Point before you were permitted entry? If you have official information about this topic, please provide sources.</span></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-6573487526975358662010-07-14T13:55:00.003-04:002010-07-14T14:06:45.825-04:00Sex Offender Scam Letter<span style="font-size:85%;">Margie Slagle of the Ohio Justice Policy Center has forwarded the attached document and is asking us to warn everyone that this is a terrible scam. This message was sent from the Cuyahoga County Public Defender's office. Please aid in spreading the word that this is simply someone's crazy attempt at making some money off the backs of others. Obviously, you should ever pay money to have yourself removed from the registry as a result of the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, unless you are hiring an attorney whom you seek out on your own.<br /><br />View scam letter <a href="http://drop.io/soscamletter">here</a>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-65507571655893346442010-07-12T14:27:00.008-04:002010-07-12T15:23:48.730-04:00Contacting Constitutionalfights.org<span style="font-size:85%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TDtgMD7qZ_I/AAAAAAAABIM/sybAkkR4IDI/s1600/emailred.png"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 142px; height: 137px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TDtgMD7qZ_I/AAAAAAAABIM/sybAkkR4IDI/s200/emailred.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5493089930838697970" border="0" /></a>Once we see that the Ohio Attorney General Office has finally reclassified the vast majority of those affected by the Bodyke decision, and once we see the AG Office sending letters to most of these people, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Constitutionalfights.org will then no longer be responding to emails or blog comments.</span><br /><br />So.. if you need or want to contact us, you may have only a few weeks or a month to do so. Make sure to use <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">a subject line related to our blog topic</span>, or it could go unread in the "spam" folder. Anyone who has us on their email address book, or mailing list, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">please remove us as soon as possible.</span> After we close these blogs, we will no longer receive your messages and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">will sent up an auto-response just to annoy until you remove us.</span><br /><br />Thanks,<br />constitutionalfights@yahoo.com<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Important:</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Keep contacting the Ohio Attorney General's Office daily until they get these re-classifications completed and send official letters !</span><br />We are hearing from some readers who have told us of their removal from the registry. We are happy to see these people relieved of their illegal punishments but we urge all readers to remain vigilant until the Attorney General Office sends official letters to registrants informing them that they no longer have a duty to register. Having these letters in hand is very important. Law enforcement is just as corrupt and incompetent as other state authorities are. <span style="font-weight: bold;">If a sheriff bangs on your door in the middle of the night because you did not register, you need to have that letter in hand !</span></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-20658693679783098682010-07-09T14:56:00.002-04:002010-07-09T15:10:29.175-04:00UPDATES, Friday, July 9 : New Info from Ohio Public Defender<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">From our contact at the Ohio Public Defender Office:</span><br /><br />Someone in our SB 10 litigation group was able to get some information from the AG’s office today. Here’s the excerpt from that email:<br /><br />The AG’s office has reclassified all of the Predators and are now working on the Habitual Offenders (those whose original classifications were either Predator or Habitual before Senate Bill 10). They are reclassifying those two groups first because all of those people clearly have a prior judicial registration order (the court order given near time of conviction which originally classified the offender). The Bodyke decision requires that these original court orders shall now go back into effect.<br /><br />For the originally-classified Sexually Oriented Offenders, they are pulling the final court order to confirm there was a hearing and reclassifying them.<br /><br />Out of state offenders will not be changed pending the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">Motion for Clarification</a>, and neither will anyone without a court order.<br /><br />They believe approximately 2300 offenders will be released from the sex offender registry. They are checking each one individually to make certain there were no tolling events. They are then notifying the Local Sheriff’s Office of whom should be removed from the registry. Notices will be sent to all but the Predators.<br /><br />They also believe that all the other provisions of SB 10 still apply to the reclassified offenders.<br /><br />They are reclassifying people whose original classifications (before SB 10) were either Predator or Habitual, because all of those people clearly have a prior judicial order. If you were originally classified as a Sexually Oriented Offender, you probably won’t be getting an official letter from the AG until they start reclassifying people who were originally SOO's. And, it looks like they’ll only reclassify SOO's who have a prior court order labeling them as such. (If you’ve seen the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">Motion for Clarification</a> that the AG filed last month, they’re unsure of how to classify people who don’t have prior court orders.)<br /><br />Note: Attorneys for Bodyke <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2008&number=2502">have filed a Motion in Opposition</a> to the AG's Motion for Clarification, which was filed immediately after the decision by the Ohio Attorney General office. We said at the time that this was a stalling tactic by the AG to buy time. Let us hope the Ohio Supreme Court quickly denies the AG motion.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-25533025940197524832010-07-06T16:46:00.003-04:002010-07-06T17:11:07.687-04:00UPDATES, Tuesday, July 6 : Arrogant Ohio Attorney General Office<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">We have experienced increasing snotty , arrogant attitudes from the Ohio Attorney General office employees.</span> <br /><br />Remember that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">these people are public servants, which means that they work for YOU</span> and me. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This attitude they are displaying is totally unacceptable</span> for State Public Servants to demonstrate to the people who pay their salaries.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do not allow them to intimidate , interrupt or act arrogantly towards you on the phone. <br />Fight back.</span><br /><br />Today, we received an e-fax number for <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Assistant Attorney General Justin Hykes, who now refuses to return our calls.</span> I encourage all readers ( even those who have received their reclassification letters) to call , email and fax him daily to ask why the AG office has been so slow to act on the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Ohio Supreme Court ruling of June 3, 2010</a>. Even those of you who have received your reclassification letters can help others who are still waiting. We are all in this fight together and need to help each other.<br /><br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br /><a href="mailto:justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a><br />614-387-4257<br />FAX 614-466-5087<br />E-fax 1 866 293 1021<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About/Careers/Working-at-the-Attorney-General-s-Office">Paula Armentrout</a> ,AG Help Center Manager can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515<br />Dan, Help Center Supervisor can be contacted here:<br />800-282-0515<br /><br />Both of these two Help Center <a href="http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/lackey">lackeys </a>have been <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">exceptionally snotty and arrogant on the phone. </span><br /><br />From the Ohio AG website:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:78%;">“We know about state government and the resources that are available to help Ohioans. We help people navigate those resources. And at the end of the day, it’s a good feeling to know you’ve helped someone with a problem.”</span><br /></span></span> <p><span style="font-size:78%;"><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About/Careers/Working-at-the-Attorney-General-s-Office"><em>Paula Armentrout</em></a><br /><em> Help Center supervisor</em></span> <span style="font-size:78%;"><br /><em> <a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/About/Sections/Constituent-Relations">Constituent Services Section</a>"</em></span> </p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">I guess she lost her affection for helping citizens.</span><br /><br /></span>It has now been over a month since the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Supreme Court decision</a> which overturned sex offender reclassifications by Ohio Senate Bill 10, and we have seen only about 600 registrants removed. <span style="font-weight: bold;">At this rate of approximately 150 removals per week, the reclassification process will take 10 years ! </span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It is time to stop being nice about this</span>. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Contact the Ohio AG office daily</span> to ask why they are not acting in a timely manner to reclassify registrants. Insist they get the reclassification letters sent out immediately. Ask when they will devote more resources to this job and when it will be completed. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Only when we keep pressure on these corrupt public servants will we see any real substantive progress.</span><br /><br />Ohio Attorney General Office:<br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515<br />Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.<br />Email Ohio ESORN at <a href="mailto:OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov">OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</a><br /><br />OHLEG Support<br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br /><a href="mailto:OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov">OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</a><br /><br />Media Contacts:<br /><br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL <a href="mailto:ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a> (614) 728-4127<br /><br />The only good part of the snotty attitude of these people is that through it, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we see that the pressure is starting to work. We must all continue to keep the pressure on these public servants</span>. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The more pressure we can keep on them, the faster these reclassifications will be completed.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/">Contact them daily !</a><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-61657704150494575952010-07-05T14:57:00.003-04:002010-07-05T15:08:56.386-04:002nd Annual Conference of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL)<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://machinatious.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/30/4589889-sex-offenders-meet-media-">Newsvine.com</a>: Sex Offenders Meet Media.<br /><br />A group of former sex offenders and experts in the field of sexual offense met with members of the press Monday, following the </span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >2nd Annual Conference of Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL).</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> RSOL seeks to reform or repeal legislation like the Adam Walsh Act, which has a current deadline for implementation of July 1st but has only been completely adopted by 4 states </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >(3 states and an Indian Tribe, as far as we know)</span><span style="font-size:85%;">.<br /><br />Surprisingly RSOL does not seek for the immediate abolishment of the Sex Offender Registry but for a more directed approach to Registration and other sex offender related laws. According to Dr. Chrysandi Leon, University of Delaware, Professor of Sociology and an Expert on Sex Offender recidivism who presented at the conference, “the limited resources of law enforcement are being diluted by the blanket registration of all sex offenders.” “Credible statistical studies over the last 15 years </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >“since the registry was implemented show that “it has had no impact of the recidivism rate.”</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> We can go back to studies from the 1940’s on, long before the registry was implemented, and show that the rate of offenses has remained remarkably consistent over the intervening years.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >RSOL advocates a more directed and individualized approach to registration using scientifically based data to identify those offenders who pose a significant treat to society and who are truly “dangerous.”</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Right now it is impossible for parents or even law enforcement to accurately determine an offender’s potential risk because of labels such as “sexually violently predator” which are blanketedly applied to all offenders who have committed a specific set of offenses rather that using individualized assessment to apply that designation. Having over 700,000 people on the registry nation-wide makes it difficult for law enforcement to narrow the field quickly when a child goes missing.<br /><br />“We are as concerned about the safety of children as anyone else” says Kelly Piercy, a former offender, and chairman of Georgians for Reform, but “we don’t believe that the current legislation is effective in doing so, it wastes resources and punishes those who are trying to reintegrate as productive citizens.”<br /><br />Interestingly several children both of non-offender presenters and children of former offenders attended and roamed freely about the conference seemingly without fear of any kind.<br /><br />Besides Dr. Leon, and Piercy other presenters at the conference included: Lloyd Swartz, New Mexico Registrant and Reform Advocate, J.Tom Morgan, former prosecutor and sex offender registry sponsor from Georgia who now states that “the registry no longer serves the purposes for which it was created;” Norman A. Pattis, Connecticut defense attorney, Nancy M. Steele, PhD, a Clinical Psychologist and sex offender treatment specialist, and Rev. James L. Powell, PhD, DD, a Methodist Minister whose Atlanta- based church welcomes sex offenders but under strict perimeters. Powell is also a licensed clinical psychologist and regularly counsels with former sex offenders. “There is much that the church and other community based organizations can do to mentor and help former sex offenders who want to reform,” thus increasing the net of safety that we all seek when dealing with those who have previously offended, particularly when the offense involves children.” Another presenter Mary Duval of Oklahoma, CEO of SOSEN, another sex offender advocacy group, became vehement in her fight for change, when her teenaged son Ricky was convicted of having sex with a younger teenaged girl. At that time there were no “Romeo and Juliet” laws which exempt consensual teenage sex from prosecution. Duval’s lobbying efforts help create these laws. Though completely blind, Duval actively lectures and campaigns throughout the United States, she also co-hosts weekly radio shows on ARC Talk Radio which focus on human rights and sex offender issues.<br /><br />The conference concluded Monday after concentrated lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. Portions of the Conference were recorded and links will soon be available online. These and other information about RSOL are available at their national website <a href="http://www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org/">www.reformsexoffenderlaws.org </a>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-88719174855062207272010-07-05T14:26:00.008-04:002010-07-05T15:34:01.528-04:00International Megan’s Law Must be Killed in Congress<span style="font-size:85%;">See related posts:<br /><a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_5138.html">The International Megan's Law of 2010</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/hr1623-international-megans-law/">HR1623 International Megan’s Law</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/international-megans-law-moves-forward-in-us-house/">International Megans Law Moves Forward in US House</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/sex-offender-law-could-go-global/">Sex Offender Law Could Go Global</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The proposed International Megan’s Law must be defeated in Congress. </span><br /><br />It has undergone several revisions and it's bill number has changed. But this International Megan’s Law bill (if passed)<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> would virtually ban any registered sex offender from traveling outside the United States.</span> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">You need to read and learn about this bill and fight vigilantly to kill it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bill Summary: </span><br />"H.R. 5138 would protect children from sexual exploitation by <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">mandating reporting requirements for</span> convicted sex traffickers and other <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">registered sex offenders against minors intending to engage in international travel</span>, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">providing advance notice of intended travel by high interest registered sex offenders outside the United States to the government of the country of destination</span>, requesting foreign governments to notify the United States when a known child sex offender is seeking to enter the United States."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We at <a href="http://constitutionalfights.org/">ConstitutionalFights.org</a> abhor sexual exploitation and abuse of any kind. But we similarly abhor laws such as this, which singles out one group of offenders for extreme punishments and restrictions which amount to constitutional infringements upon their liberty in this great country. Former offenders have the same dreams and desires others have of traveling to other parts of the world. What would you think if the government told YOU that you could never travel outside the US without restrictions, and government monitoring?</span><br /><br />From Terry at <a href="http://justiceinjersey.org/">JusticeinJersey.org</a>:<br /><br /></span><blockquote style="border: medium none; padding: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">When I met with Rep. Chris Smith's office (they had 2 attorneys) I was handed a new copy of bill <a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_5138.html">H.R. 5138 </a>and told that they had revised it. We talked about the revisions and since then I have been reading it line by line for intent and objections. I have sent them three pages so far and am 1/2 way through the bill. </span><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><b> </b>I just came across another hidden point which is disturbing and I believe we all should be writing to our Senators and all of the representatives on The Congressional Appropriations Committee.</span></blockquote> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div> <div> <ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A Fee, not to exceed the amount of $25 will be charged by ICE to all sex offenders</span> as a processing fee. However, this fee can be increased thereafter, not earlier than 30 days after consultation with the appropriate congressional committees. </span></li><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;">This is an unlimited pool of money from hardworking sex offenders to pay for the additional resources and to other counties. They are also asking for 250,000 (a quarter mil) as start up money from the our taxpayers in addition to providing resources, money, and technology to other countries. </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">While they also state that this fee shall be waved if the sex offender demonstrates to the satisfaction of ICE, pursuant to a fee waiver process established by ICE, that the payment of such fee would impose and undue financial hardship on the sex offender. (how could one prove hardship when planing to travel internationally? Most SOs fall just above the income line to be able to qualify.)</span></li></ul></ul> <div style=""><span style="font-size:85%;">When I spoke to the Representatives of Congressman Chris Smith's office, I was assured that the bill was changed to go after the worst of the worst based on risk based evaluations performed by ICE. If that were true this bill would not constantly say just "sex offender" instead of saying "high risk sex offender as identified by ICE through risk based evaluation testing."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Of course, this bill applies to all registered sex offenders (as written) whose offense involved a minor. And this fee is just one objectionable point in this legislation. The restriction and monitoring of any ex offender who desires to travel internationally is the main point of objection.</span><br /></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;">Please write your Senator(s) and the Congressional Appropriations Committee </span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> <div> <h2 style="padding-bottom: 10px; font-variant: normal; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; color: rgb(37, 68, 135); font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal;"> <div style="display: block;"> <div style="font-size: 1em;">Appropriations Committee Members</div></div></h2></div> <div> <div title=""><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_textblocknohdr1505"></a><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_CP_JUMP_1505"></a> <div style="display: block;"> <div style="font-size: 1em ! important;"> <h4 style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(181, 13, 11); font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold;">Democratic Members</h4> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/inouye.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_DanielInouye"></a><strong>DANIEL K. INOUYE</strong><br />Hawaii, Chairman<br /><br />Defense (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS, and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, State, Foreign Operations<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://inouye.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=4576199f-70c2-4942-8b66-83eb61739641">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/leahy.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_PatrickLeahy"></a><strong>PATRICK J. LEAHY</strong><br />Vermont<br /><br />State, Foreign Operations (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://leahy.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=703a9eea-26e9-46f4-a783-30fd30a5964b">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/harkin.committee.jpg" border="0" width="69" height="103" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_TomHarkin"></a><strong>TOM HARKIN</strong><br />Iowa<br /><br />Labor, HHS, Education (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://harkin.senate.gov">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=bbbc35d5-d39a-4741-af2d-63d47a60098f">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/mikulski.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_BarbaraMikulski"></a><strong>BARBARA A. MIKULSKI</strong><br />Maryland<br /><br />Commerce, Justice, Science (Chairman), Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://mikulski.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=052197b6-a11e-41e8-852d-79f525116b6b">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/kohl.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_HerbKohl"></a><strong>HERB KOHL</strong><br />Wisconsin<br /><br />Agriculture, Rural Development (Chairman), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education, Transportation /HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://kohl.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=13130797-b05e-4a73-8b77-c7c68237e2cb">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/murray.committee.bmp" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_PattyMurray"></a><strong>PATTY MURRAY</strong><br />Washington<br /><br />Transportation/HUD (Chairman), Defense, Energy and Water Development, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://murray.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=0390a0e0-b3b2-4e66-9c99-e52907566e55">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/dorgan.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_ByronDorgan"></a><strong>BYRON DORGAN</strong><br />North Dakota<br /><br />Energy and Water Development (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Interior, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://dorgan.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=56761dfd-b3da-48b1-a99d-e60543b68c0c">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/feinstein.committee.bmp" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_DianneFeinstein"></a><strong>DIANNE FEINSTEIN</strong><br />California<br /><br />Interior (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://feinstein.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=f4dc4d98-3272-45e7-943e-a11258e8455a">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/durbin.committee.bmp" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_RichardDurbin"></a><strong>RICHARD J. DURBIN</strong><br />Illinois<br /><br />Financial Services and General Government (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Labor, HHS and Education, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://durbin.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=3951bedb-0bb9-4baa-be7c-d27e79d8ea58">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/johnson.committee.bmp" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_TimJohnson"></a><strong>TIM JOHNSON</strong><br />South Dakota<br /><br />Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (Chairman), Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://johnson.senate.gov">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=e87c2e65-55f8-475f-a62f-e1c720ccef31">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/landrieu.committee.bmp" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_MaryLandrieu"></a><strong>MARY L. LANDRIEU</strong><br />Louisiana<br /><br />Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS and Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, State, Foreign Operations<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://landrieu.senate.gov">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=86cba599-b6ab-4760-a7a4-7c2dfed9a8b7">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/reed.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_JackReed"></a><strong>JACK REED</strong><br />Rhode Island<br /><br />Agriculture and Rural Development, Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Labor, HHS, Education, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://reed.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=92fd6a5c-89ee-48a8-8231-622de429a530">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/lautenberg.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_FrankLautenberg"></a><strong>FRANK R. LAUTENBERG</strong><br />New Jersey<br /><br />Homeland Security (Interim Chairman),Commerce, Justice, Science, Transportation/HUD, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Labor, HHS and Education, State, Foreign Operations<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://lautenberg.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=b9009d22-1d0b-4361-bce3-440649ffd988">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/nelson.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_BenNelson"></a><strong>BEN NELSON</strong><br />Nebraska<br /><br />Legislative Branch (Chairman), Agriculture and Rural Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Commerce, Justice, Science<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://bennelson.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=52ce6df4-248d-418d-bb6d-2c5ce1a32de0">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/pryor.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_MarkPryor"></a><strong>MARK PRYOR</strong><br />Arkansas<br /><br />Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Science, Labor, HHS and Education, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://pryor.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=f58d4653-b94c-490f-aa7b-34473758a98b">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/tester.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_JonTester"></a><strong>JON TESTER</strong><br />Montana<br /><br />Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Legislative Branch<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://tester.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=d2eabff1-cc28-4f91-ae86-859211bbb276">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img title="Specter Thumbnail" alt="Specter Thumbnail" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/Specter_1.jpg" border="0" width="72" height="98" hspace="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_ArlenSpecter"></a><strong>ARLEN SPECTER</strong><br />Pennsylvania<br /><br />Labor, HHS and Education, Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Homeland Security, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://specter.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=7dba1196-c3e8-478d-a3c8-03894c884c17">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr></tbody></table> <h4 style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(181, 13, 11); font-size: 11px; font-weight: bold;">Republican Members</h4> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/cochran.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_ThadCochran"></a><strong>THAD COCHRAN</strong><br />Mississippi, Vice Chairman<br /><br />Defense (Ranking), Homeland Security, Agriculture and Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://cochran.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=65659e17-29f9-44ec-bf62-1033a81c80a3">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/bond.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_ChristopherBond"></a><strong>CHRISTOPHER S. BOND</strong><br />Missouri<br /><br />Transportation/HUD (Ranking), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://bond.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=602ae74e-c092-4760-b802-c4eb8f0177df">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/mcconnell.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_MitchMcConnell"></a><strong>MITCH MCCONNELL</strong><br />Kentucky<br /><br />Agriculture and Rural Development, State, Foreign Operations, Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://mcconnell.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=c0b9bbbc-f7ff-488f-a964-67ee852f4975">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/shelby.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_RichardShelby"></a><strong>RICHARD C. SHELBY</strong><br />Alabama<br /><br />Commerce, Justice, Science (Ranking), Energy and Water Development, Defense, Homeland Security, Labor, HHS, Education, Transportation/ HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://shelby.senate.gov/public/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=6bcf9ba3-0609-490f-b1e8-1a892dca6051">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/gregg.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_JuddGregg"></a><strong>JUDD GREGG</strong><br />New Hampshire<br /><br />State, Foreign Operations (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, HHS and Education<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://gregg.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=dcb25156-c25f-4f5b-87d7-6933a4e53a9a">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/bennett.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_RobertBennett"></a><strong>ROBERT F. BENNETT</strong><br />Utah<br /><br />Energy and Water Development (Ranking), Agriculture and Rural Development, Defense, Interior, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://bennett.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=ab2e8fab-911c-445d-af4c-983c3833833d">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/hutchison.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_KayBaileyHutchison"></a><strong>KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON</strong><br />Texas<br /><br />Military Construction and Veterans Affairs (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Defense, Energy and Water Development, Labor, HHS and Education, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://hutchison.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=91070a7e-ca9c-4215-8e48-a68662ac8f8f">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/brownback.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_SamBrownback"></a><strong>SAM BROWNBACK</strong><br />Kansas<br /><br />Agriculture and Rural Development (Ranking), Homeland Security, State, Foreign Operations, Commerce, Justice, Science, Transportation/HUD, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://brownback.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=2398c0e6-3ea4-4432-99b9-440c599b587b">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/alexander.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_LamarAlexander"></a><strong>LAMAR ALEXANDER</strong><br />Tennessee<br /><br />Interior (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, Labor, HHS, and Education, Financial Services and General Government, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://alexander.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=fcf60ee9-4a16-4177-95b4-cbed05b3f5ba">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/collins.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_SusanCollins"></a><strong>SUSAN COLLINS</strong><br />Maine<br /><br />Financial Services and General Government (Ranking), Agriculture, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://collins.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=528665dc-7d49-4780-abc5-b6c22585af5c">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/voinovich.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_GeorgeVoinovich"></a><strong>GEORGE VOINOVICH</strong><br />Ohio<br /><br />Homeland Security (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Energy and Water Development, State, Foreign Operations, Transportation/HUD<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://voinovich.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=d860a9c0-26b4-4a1e-8b2d-bb14d5defa66">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr> <tr> <td style="vertical-align: top;"><img alt="Senator Portrait" src="http://appropriations.senate.gov/images/murkowski.committee.jpg" border="0" /></td> <td style="border-bottom: 1px solid gray; padding-bottom: 10px; font-size: 0.9em; vertical-align: top;"><a rel="nofollow" name="129a0020e2455aee_LisaMurkowski"></a><strong>LISA MURKOWSKI</strong><br />Alaska<br /><br />Legislative Branch (Ranking), Commerce, Justice, Science, Homeland Security, Interior, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs<br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://www.senate.gov/cgi-bin/exitmsg?url=http://murkowski.senate.gov/">Visit website</a><br /><a rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135); text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" href="http://appropriations.senate.gov/disclosures.cfm?method=disclosures.default&id=960e6556-3ce0-4676-a3ea-78f702b3efa8">Financial Disclosure Letters</a></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></span></span></div> <div><span style="color: rgb(37, 68, 135);font-size:85%;" ><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;">Please let us know once you have called, emailed or written to the committee and your senator. You should also write to Representative Chris Smith, 2375 Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC 20515. </span></div> <div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"> Thank you so much for your time and attention to this important matter.<br /><br />Terry<br /><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.justiceinjersey.org/">www.JusticeInJersey.org</a><br />RSOL State Coordinator<br /><a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://us.mc1119.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NowJustice4All@gmail.com">NowJustice4All@gmail.com</a><br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-28760777145507721342010-07-04T01:04:00.001-04:002010-07-04T01:06:48.591-04:00Sex Offenders and Civil Rights<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://defendingsexcrimes.blogspot.com/2010/07/sex-offenders-and-civil-rights.html">Defending Sex Crimes</a>: Sex Offenders and Civil Rights<br /><br />A law student I admire sent me a note not long ago asking, in effect, whether those calling for the reform of sex offender legislation were opposed to punishment for those engaged in real acts of sexual misconduct. The hypothetical case she used as an example was that of a 50-year-old man who abused a six-year-old girl. Such conduct, of course, calls for a response by the law; child abuse is wrong. No one is asking that it be legalized.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">But the current regime of sex offender legislation does far more than target such offenses. It encompasses an ever-widening course of conduct, and it imposes ever-more draconian consequences.</span> Reform efforts are focused on a sense of proportion between offense and consequence. These efforts also ask that lawmakers and the courts give ample consideration to whether some offenses ought to carry criminal consequences at all.<br /><br />I spoke a week ago at a conference on the reform of sex offender legislation and was moved almost to tears by what I saw: Adults living almost in fear of government and others. Attendees at the conference wore name badges that simply gave their first name and their state of origin. When I questioned why this was so, one participant told me they were afraid of retaliation by government actors. That struck me as almost paranoid, but the paranoia has its source in laws at once so savage and harsh that I understand the fear. It is, after all, a criminal offense is 13 states to urinate in public: doing so will land you a place on the sex offender registry, and the communal scorn that comes of this. No wonder people are afraid.<br /><br />While at the conference, one man asked whether the treatment of sex offenders was a civil rights issue. Had the time not come for concerted legal efforts to challenge laws that are overbroad in application and often cruel and unusual in application.<br /><br />I am not sure how much relief the courts are prepared to offer. My sense is that reform of these laws is primarily a legislative effort, and that nothing will be as successful in promoting change as grassroots efforts by those harmed by these laws. Judges, for example, are afraid, often reluctant to act when they must face re-election or retention hearings. Even in the federal courts, where judges have lifetime appointments, political pressure can be keen: Public hysteria is focused now on United States District Court Judge Robert N. Chatigny, a nominee to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: Muckrakers claim the judge is soft on sex offenders and therefore unworthy of confirmation. This is scary stuff. Who wants to stand next to a sex offender?<br /><br />But lawyers can play a role. We can litigate cases or controversies arising under state and federal constitutions. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Ohio's Jeff Gamso just won a spectacular victory under the Ohio constitution, persuading the state's Supreme Court that it's sex offender classification system involved a violation of the state's separation of powers clause. </span>Other states have similar doctrines and practices. Lawyers need a clearing house to share this information.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">What's needed are lawyers willing to give of their time to help push reform. Needed even more is an organization to provide administrative support for the lawyers. </span><br /><br />Someone asked a question from the floor of the Washington conference last week about what it would take to form a committee of lawyers willing to support the reform. Here's the answer:<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Your question has prompted one lawyer, me, to declare a willingness to serve. I'll be reaching out to other lawyers with an aim of finding folks in each of the 50 states. </span>But now I have a question: When we've lined up all these lawyers, we'll need help moving paper and gathering information. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Where will we find that support?</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-24305960913851531902010-07-01T15:35:00.005-04:002010-07-01T15:50:16.211-04:00Re-classification Letters from Ohio AG<span style="font-size:85%;">Thanks to Jay, a reader, we have obtained a copy of the reclassification letters to be sent to those registrants who are affected by the Ohio Bodyke Supreme Court ruling.<br /><br />The letter is sent from Mr. Steve Raubenolt<br />Deputy Superintendent of Identification, Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation<br />Post Office Box 365<br />London, OH 43140-0365<br />(740) 845-2105<br />(740) 845-2020 Fax<br />sraubenolt@ag.state.oh.us<br /><br />It may be worth trying to contact him if you still have not received your letter. Today marks one month since the Bodyke decision. Yet we have heard of only a couple of people who have received re-classification letters. Readers are encouraged to keep contacting these officials until they do what they are legally required to do, in accordance with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TCzufs-YPtI/AAAAAAAABIE/wgk5sa4XUvY/s1600/Reclassification_Sanitized.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 159px; height: 200px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TCzufs-YPtI/AAAAAAAABIE/wgk5sa4XUvY/s200/Reclassification_Sanitized.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5489024274273943250" border="0" /></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Also contact:<br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br />justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov<br />614-387-4257<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-51174845244504710952010-06-30T15:44:00.006-04:002010-07-03T14:45:18.464-04:00Changes To Georgia Sex Offender Registry<span style="font-size:85%;">See related post : <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/shh-georgias-sex-offender-law-changed-last-week/">Shh…Georgia’s Sex Offender Law Changed Last Week</a><br /><br />HB 571 makes significant changes to Georgia law governing persons on the sex offender registry. Some key changes are described below.<br /><br />If you have questions about how the new law applies to you, we encourage you to check with your local sheriff's office, with your parole or probation officer, or with a legal professional. We also encourage you to read the text of the new law. HB 571 became effective on May 21, 2010.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gasorr.org/571sum.html">A Summary of key provisions of HB 571</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hb571.htm">Read text of HB 571 here.</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-6771703737726024962010-06-28T13:54:00.005-04:002010-06-28T14:18:23.511-04:00UPDATES, Monday, June 28 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications<span style=";font-size:85%;" >Today's updated number of registered offenders according to the Ohio ESORN web site:<br /><br />Total Number of Offenders: 18,964 (as of 2pm on 6-28-2010)<br />Last update: (6-21-2010): 19,206<br /><br />Readers should continue to contact the Ohio Attorney General's offices. In particular, we are told that Assistant AG Justin Hykes is the main person of responsibility here. He seems to be increasingly refusing to answer or return calls so be persistent.<br /><br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br />justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov<br />614-387-4257<br /><br />While a trickle of registrants are being removed, it is nearly a month after the Supreme Court ruling and we have seen just over 300 registrants removed from the sex offender registry, overall. We have heard of only one person receiving a letter from the AG office. Click the Watchdog logo below for more contact info:<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-50034983660561776452010-06-25T00:26:00.004-04:002010-06-25T00:37:10.733-04:00A Readers' Email<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This keeps things in perspective:</span><br /><br />"I am one of the few offenders, whose original Megan’s Law status “Predator with Community Notification” (based on three GSI’s with minors), had actually been lowered to “Tier-2 Level with No Community Notification” by the Adam Walsh Act. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Even though the reclassification law was ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, Senate Bill 10/AWA had actually benefited me. </span>However, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">I am glad that it was ruled unconstitutional for all of the other offenders’ sake and for our constitutional rights’ sake</span>.<br /><br />I had served nearly 6 years in prison (Jan. 17th, 2003- Nov. 26th, 2008). While in prison I received news from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office that my status had been lowered. When I had gotten released, I went to the Lorain County Sheriff and started my twice annually reporting with “No” community notification (every June and December). I have been completely compliant with all reporting and restrictions. When I went to the sheriff’s office for my June reporting (June 9th, 2010) they said they couldn’t register me that day because (unbeknownst) to me, the retroactivity portion of the AWA had been ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. They said they would call me once they got confirmation from the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and the local Lorain County Prosecutor’s office to look into my court file to see what the judge had deemed me under Megan’s Law.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> They called me on June 12th to let me know that I was being reclassified to “Predator Status with Community Notification” and that I had to come back and register so that “post cards” could be sent out </span>(1000 feet around my address) after the sheriffs verify my address and that I will have to report every 90 days for life. I have lived in the same place since I was released from prison (a little room above a bar with no kitchen, with 3 neighbors in the other rooms above the bar; we share one bathroom). At least under the Megan’s Law, I can ask my judge for a reclassification hearing!<br /><br />I have contacted an attorney. I have completed my sex offense counseling and have been deemed “least likely to re-offend” by my counselor and the Static 99 Test. I have stayed trouble-free this whole time, but have not been able to get hired by any employers. I fortunately receive help from my sister and food stamps. I used to make over $40k a year. As you can see here, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Ohio Attorney General’s Office doesn’t drag their feet when it comes to “<span style="font-weight: bold;">raising</span>” somebody’s status.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Unfortunately, all of us sex offenders (even us who have served our time) keep getting kicked in the head like a dog.</span> Thank you for your relentless fighting and determination to keep us from losing all of our constitutional rights. I am a 4-year honorably-discharged US Navy veteran (1981-1985) and almost all I have left in this life are some constitutional rights. Enough is Enough."<br /><br />-from Roy<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-81059589071972053892010-06-22T16:22:00.004-04:002010-06-22T16:42:11.508-04:00A Reader's Suggestion<span style=";font-size:85%;" >I plan to write the Justices on the Ohio Supreme Court, each one individual letters, thanking them for their sage insight in making the June 3rd decision. I want to show them that my life is profoundly impacted in a positive way by their ruling, even if the purpose of the ruling was not directly intended to alleviate the retroactive application of an expansion of registration laws, but was solely intended to protect the Judicial Powers and the Constitutional principles that guaranty them. If you decide to do likewise, and write, I recommend a brief couple of sentences, and staying on the positive side with your comments.<br /><br />I think this ruling is a small opportunity to remind the Justices that we are decent, grateful people, who merely want an opportunity to live our lives, and to let them know how profoundly their decision has improved the lives of many. Maybe these ideas will lay in their memory, and come to the fore when future sex offender legislation challenges come before them.<br /><br />from Chris<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">....This is a good suggestion...</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Chief Justice Eric Brown/ Justice Paul E. Pfeifer/Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton/ Justice Maureen O’Connor/ Justice Terrence O’Donnell/ Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger/ Justice Robert R. Cupp</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Supreme Court of Ohio</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">65 South Front Street</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-47021534811122054302010-06-22T00:27:00.003-04:002010-06-22T00:34:14.286-04:00UPDATES, Monday, June 21 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications<span style="font-size:85%;">Update: 6-21-2010<br /><br />ESORN Total Number of Offenders: 19,206<br />Number of removed registrants as of 6-21-2010 (4:30PM) = 92<br /><br />Last update (6-16-2010) : Total number of registrants was: 19,298<br />Todays total (6-21-2010): 19,206<br /><br />Info is all according to the eSORN site.<br /><br />[Posted by our friend, Kevin at ARC radio. Thanks Kevin !]<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The Ohio Attorney General Office could not possibly move any slower than this !</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Help pressure them to take more timely action by being a Watchdog:</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-75639024914030173092010-06-17T23:24:00.012-04:002010-06-18T14:13:53.194-04:00UPDATES, Friday June 18 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Attorney General<span style="font-size:85%;">We have received more information from the office of Ohio Assistant Attorney General, Justin Hykes (614-387-4257 ):<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >He is saying that the AG office is going through these registered sex offenders manually</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> to determine if their registry entries are correct. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Mr. Hykes believes this manual process will take 4 – 6 weeks to complete. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >( This is an unacceptable time frame !)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">They are waiting for the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">OH Supreme Court to rule on the clarification motion</a> before reclassifying everyone at once. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >(This is a stalling tactic by the AG. By filing this motion for clarification, they have a flimsy excuse for not reclassifying everyone in a timely manner).</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> He has "no idea" when the Supreme Court will rule on the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">Clarification Motion</a>.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Mr. Hykes is advising offenders to comply with their registrations even if they should now be expired. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >He said the Sheriffs’ may arrest out of compliance offenders</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, leaving offenders to prove they have judicial orders before they could be released. The offender would be found not guilty of failure to register but not until after being arrested. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(Then they can file a lawsuit for this false arrest.)</span></span><br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Email or Fax Your Judicial Order to the Ohio Attorney General:</span><br /><br />In light of these discoveries, we suggest all readers who are now improperly classified sex offenders </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >fax or email their "judicial order" papers to the Attorney General's office.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> When you were convicted and sentenced, you should have had a separate judicial hearing where a judge determined your classification ( Sexually Oriented Offender, Habitual Offender, or Predator). </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >If you can find this paper, you should fax or email it to the AG Office with "Attention: Justin Hykes" on the subject line.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br /><a href="mailto:justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a><br />614-387-4257<br />FAX 614-466-5087 (main AG fax)<br />(This is the best Fax number we can find at this time. We do not know yet to what division this fax number goes to. Readers can try to call various numbers within the AG Department and ask for a fax number. If anyone can obtain or confirm a Fax number, please let us know <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">here</a>)<br /><br />They are, of course, refusing to give out an appropriate Fax number. I did also get an e-Fax number which will go to Paula Armantrout at 866-721-2283 ( Managing Supervisor for Help Center), who "promised" to forward faxes to Justin Hykes. We shall see if that actually happens.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >It is very disturbing that Mr. Hykes is stating that invalidated ex offenders are "required to register", even though they are illegally classified by the Ohio Attorney General Office, which is failing to take action to remove these offenders from their registry list. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />We have also been told by another AG Official that Sheriffs cannot arrest an ex offender who is now not legally required to register due to the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">June 3rd Supreme Court ruling</a>. Despite the fact that this demonstrates how incompetent the Office of the AG is in giving out contradictory information, </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >it opens a wide gate for lawsuits should any ex offender be arrested for not registering when they are no longer legally required to do so.</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Widespread and massive lawsuits against the State should follow if anyone is arrested after the Supreme Court has ruled that they have been unconstitutionally classified and are no longer required to register.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >To Public Defenders:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />We know that some County and State Public Defenders read our blogs. If you have any information for us about this threat to arrest those who do not register when they are no longer required to register, please send us an email <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">here</a>. Please also let us know what type of legal recourse or protection is appropriate should any of these invalidated registrants be arrested falsely. We would like to post this information for our readers. Thank you.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-30847089438464711452010-06-17T14:17:00.005-04:002010-06-17T14:56:57.739-04:00Sex Crimes Can Never Be Eradicated<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TBptp6bgXDI/AAAAAAAABH8/aWBaS2dtAVI/s1600/1-cain-abel.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 132px; height: 156px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TBptp6bgXDI/AAAAAAAABH8/aWBaS2dtAVI/s200/1-cain-abel.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5483816063103687730" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">As much as we, as a society, would like to see the end of all sex crimes in this nation, it will never happen. To believe or suggest otherwise is simply naivete and foolishness.<br /><br />If you disagree, let's look at the facts of our society. Don't most people in our society abhor the taking of another human life? Don't we want murder to stop? Haven't we had laws to deter murder for hundreds of years in this country? Of course, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we have tried futiley since the inception of our nation to eradicate murder.</span><br /><br />Have we ever, over the course of humanity, been able to end all murders? The answer is, obviously:<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> no</span>.</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Our laws become deterrents for most people to commit such horrific crimes, but not for all.</span> This truth holds true for all crimes: drunk driving, abuse, theft, fraud, speeding, racism, etc.. None of these can ever be erased from our society regardless of the punishments associated with them. No matter what laws these legislators can dream up, there will always be some who commit sex offenses.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Once we understand this simple truth, we can come to rational approaches to drafting logical sex offender laws. </span> Sex offenses are no worse, nor no better, than any other type of crime. Crime is crime. Right is right, Wrong is wrong.<br /><br />But as long as we have <a href="http://www.norwalkreflector.com/articles/2010/06/15/front/doc4c1834dcc16de968197592.txt">"sky-is-falling" irrational maniacs</a> driving our legislators to continue this broad-brush, punching-bag style legislative fight against sex offenders, we will never come to effective, constitutional and balanced sex offender legislation in this country.<br /><br />The Ohio vs. Bodyke Supreme Court ruling is just one step in the right direction. We still have a huge battle before us to step away from all of these emotion-driven sex offender laws across the nation. We, as the people, are to blame. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Legislators only act when they see it in their own political self-interest to do so.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If we can ever educate the panic-driven people who want to throw sex offenders off bridges, or castrate them, or worse....we can finally see some rational and logical legislation dealing with this crime</span>. Just as we do with all other crimes. Until then, the hysterical sex offender laws will continue to cause devastation to the families of nearly one million Americans and to threaten the stability of our society.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-24530135277624223602010-06-17T00:10:00.003-04:002010-06-17T00:14:55.132-04:00US House Votes to Ban Mortgages to Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=4680">Sex Offenders Flagged for FHA Mortgages</a> — The House passed an amendment, sponsored by <a href="http://edwards.house.gov/">Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas</a>, to the FHA Reform Act that will require individuals applying for mortgage from the Federal Housing Administration to </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/06/14/1081703/last-week-in-congress-how-our.html">http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/06/14/1081703/last-week-in-congress-how-our.html</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-64041296556143720602010-06-16T18:27:00.007-04:002010-06-17T00:03:39.969-04:00What About All Those Fees County Sheriffs Extort From Sex Offenders on Registries?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TBmeI6r9nAI/AAAAAAAABH0/EB0HOaD1Ezc/s1600/robber.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 135px; height: 146px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TBmeI6r9nAI/AAAAAAAABH0/EB0HOaD1Ezc/s200/robber.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5483587897330080770" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">We first reported in April 2009 of Ohio County Sheriff Departments charging fees to registered sex offenders when they register on site. See: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/ohio-county-sheriffs-rape-sex-offenders/">Ohio County Sheriffs Rape Sex Offenders</a><br /><br />We then began hearing that Sheriff Departments were charging such fees in more than 20 Ohio Counties. See: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/more-ohio-counties-charge-sex-offenders/">More Ohio Counties Charge Sex Offenders</a><br /><br />This allowance was written into the Ohio Revised Code:<br /><a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/311.171">311.171 Fees for sex offender registration and notification.</a>(Maximum fee =$100 per year)<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We have suggested all along that ex sex offenders refuse to pay these extortion fees</span>. The law says that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Sheriffs cannot refuse to register those who do not pay</span> (see C 5). And any <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">unpaid fees can only be pursued through civil debt collection</span> (see C 6): "The county may recover those fees in a civil action in the same manner as other money due the county."<br /><br />Now the question arises: What do we do about all the fees which were paid to Sheriff Departments across the state by ex offenders who are now affected by the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Bodyke Supreme Court ruling</a>?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Those who are now expunged from the sex offender registries have every right to sue</span> the County, State, Ohio Attorney General and County Sheriff Department <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">to reclaim this money</span>. We suggest that any ex offender who is now removed from the registries file suit to reclaim these fees. This can be done through <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1925">small claims court</a>, where citizens can sue for amounts less than $3000. Citizens can sue without an attorney and a small filing fee will be required. Check your local courts for instructions on how to file such lawsuits. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We are not legal professionals and cannot give specific legal advice, so you should consult your own legal professional or do your own research. </span> It is probably a good idea to include all of those agencies to be sure you include the ultimate party of responsibility (Your County, The State of Ohio, Ohio Attorney General and County Sheriff Department).<br /><br />Even if this money does not mean much to you (or if you would rather just let it go and get on with your life) <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">you should consider doing this</span>. Putting more pressure on the Sheriff Departments and State will further the cause against such punitive sex offender laws. Right now, in this nation and state, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sex offenders are the easy punching bag. </span> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Only by fighting back in these types of battles will we ever see significant changes in sex offender laws.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-49121954619237829622010-06-16T14:44:00.003-04:002010-06-16T17:34:45.064-04:00Emails from Ohio Attorney General<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We have received some emails from a reader who contacts the Ohio Attorney General regularly (We thank him and we should all be doing this).</span><br /><br />"According to our Attorney, on Friday we'll give them a list of offenders who we expired. On Monday they will be sending out a letter. It would probably take several days to a week before the letter will get to you. So I would hope that by the 25th you should have something."<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Stephen R. Brown</span></span><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:78%;">,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I<br />Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229</span><br /><br />"After reviewing your record, we have determined that under Megan's Law your registration duties have been fulfilled. Please contact your County Sheriff Office regarding the expiration of your sex offender record and the subsequent duties to register."<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I<br />Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We also recieved this , from another reader (Thank you):</span><br /><br />"Spoke to Bob Hastings,<a href="http://www.hamilton-co.org/pub_def/default.htm"> Hamilton County Appellate Public Defender</a> today. He had the following to say:<br /><br />* He believes the Ohio Supreme Court will reclassify those in groups a and b (<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/ohio-attorney-general-files-motion-for-reconsideration/">see AG motion to Supreme Court I sent out yesterday and attached here again</a>). He feels those in group C may not be reclassified. He said it is around 50 offenders in group C.<br /><br />* Bob said he believes the AG office will move forward soon to reclassify those in group A, especially those who will fall off the registry due to the Bodyke decision. He says it is expensive to keep these SOs in the system and that the AG knows that.<br /><br />* If the AG stops moving forward his office will take legal action.<br /><br />* Any independent motion by a single SO will take up to 6 months to be resolved. So it is not very prudent at this time to take court action.<br /><br />* He is meeting tomorrow with the Hamilton County prosecutor's office and will keep me updated. "<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-86318040378597488232010-06-15T21:44:00.002-04:002010-06-16T13:59:07.572-04:00Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications<span style="font-size:85%;">Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications:<br /><br />We have created a <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2787-2/">new page on our blogs</a> where we will post updates from readers who are monitoring whether their re-classifications were updated or not. If you have contacted the Ohio AG, your County Sheriff, or other state authorities and have valuable information to share with other readers, send an <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com?subject=Update%20Page">email to us here</a>.<br /><br />If you have seen your registration updated (re-classified or removed), let us know, as well:</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-17225222899207727682010-06-15T18:49:00.005-04:002010-06-16T17:53:36.230-04:00Ohio Attorney General Files Motion for Clarification<span style="font-size:85%;">The Ohio Attorney General Filed yesterday a <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/667484.pdf">Motion for Reconsideration in the Ohio Supreme Court </a>in response to the Bodyke vs, Ohio decision of June 3, 2010.<br /><br />JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION BY<br />APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO AND AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL<br />RICHARD CORDRAY (<a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/667484.pdf">view PDF file</a>)<br /><br />INTRODUCTION<br />In accordance with Supreme Court Practice Rules 11.2 and 14.4, the State of Ohio and the Ohio Attorney General respectfully move this Court for <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">clarification of its June 3; 2010</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> decision in State v. Bodyke,</span> 2010 Ohio Lexis 1271, 2010-Ohio-2424.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Neither the State nor the Attorney General is asking the Court to reverse its holding that two provisions in the Ohio Adam Walsh Act ("the Walsh Act"), which required the Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been judicially classified under the old Megan's Law, violate the separation-of-powers doctrine</span>. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Rather, the State and the Attorney General <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">seek clarification</span> of the Court's remedy-specifically, whether the Court facially invalidated R.C. 2950.031 and R.C. 2950.032, and thereby struck the provisions entirely, or whether the Court only invalidated those provisions as applied to sex offenders who had been judicially classified under Megan's Law.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The Attorney General's Office is moving quickly </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(No, they are not)</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> to update the State's sex-offender registry</span> (e-SORN) to comply with the Bodyke decision. For offenders who received Megan's Law classifications by court order before the effective date of the Walsh Act, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Office will update e-SORN to reflect the original Megan's Law classifications and notify these offenders of the reclassification (<span style="font-style: italic;">When? </span>)</span>. Absent clarification from this Court, however, the Attorney General does not know what classifications to input for a significant segment of sex offenders who did not receive a Megan's Law classification by court order.<br /><br />All parties-the State and the offenders themselves-will benefit from clarification. Such a pronouncement will ensure that the Attorney General, the county prosecutors, and the county sheriffs properly implement the Court's directive; it will provide clear notice to individual offenders as to which framework-Megan's Law or the Walsh Act-applies to them; and it will accord the Bodyke decision the finality this Court intended.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">I am told by the Ohio Public Defender's office that this request for clarification is with regard to those who went to prison before Megan’s Law was effective (so, before July 1, 1997) and were released after Senate Bill 10 went into effect (so, after July 1, 2007). Those people would never have been classified under Megan’s Law, so they didn’t have a prior judicial order classifying them under the Megan’s Law, risk-based system. Since the language in Bodyke talks about prior judicial orders, the AG’s office is asking the Court to clarify how the Bodyke decision should affect this group of people.</span><br /><br />To understand this motion, know the following sub-groups discussed in this motion (pages 6-8):<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Group A</span>: "Offenders who were sentenced between July 1, 1997 and July 1, 2007. Bodyke unquestionably applies to this first class of offenders. These individuals received a Megan's Law classification "by court order," and had their status under Megan's<br />Law "adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order." Under Bodyke, this group of offenders may not be reclassified under the Walsh Act. Rather, their Megan's Law classifications remain in effect."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Group B</span>: "Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released<br />before July 1, 2007. These individuals may not have received a formal order from a court specifying their Megan's Law classification."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Group C</span>: "C. Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released after July 1, 2007. These are offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997 and therefore did not receive a Megan's Law classification at the time of sentencing"<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-13029078824145156662010-06-15T18:18:00.002-04:002010-06-15T18:45:55.315-04:00Ex Sex Offenders Want Restrictions Lifted<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/06/13/copy/sex-offenders-want-restrictions-lifted.html">dispatch.com</a>: Sex offenders want restrictions lifted- Sheriffs not reacting yet to court’s ruling.<br /><br />Some sex offenders are calling sheriff's offices and demanding that their pictures and addresses be removed from online listings.<br /><br />But</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > sheriffs are being told not to alter anything <span style="font-style: italic;">(by the Ohio Attorney General's office, we are told)</span> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">while lawyers and prosecutors work to determine the fallout from a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision.<br /><br />The<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/"> justices ruled </a>that six tiers of sex offenders sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008, improperly were reclassified into three federally mandated tiers that have tougher reporting and registration requirements.<br /><br />The </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >court's mandate to Ohio's attorney general to reclassify the affected sex offenders </span><span style="font-size:85%;">means some offenders no longer will need to register or report to sheriff's offices.<br /><br />For example, under the state's Megan's Law classifications, the lowest-level offenders - sexually oriented and child-victim oriented - were required to register their addresses annually for 10 years.<br /><br />The adoption of the federal Adam Walsh Act guidelines beginning in 2008 then required many of those same sex criminals to report their addresses for 15 years and to report in-person to a sheriff's office once a year.<br /><br />Now, thousands of Ohio's 26,000 sex offenders will be shifted back to the 10-year registration, meaning an undetermined number no longer will have to register and are to be removed from offender listings.<br /><br />There currently are about 3,600 sex offenders registered in Franklin and surrounding counties. No sheriffs yet had good guesses on how many will be freed from reporting requirements.<br /><br />"We're going to lose some people, and there will be decreased community notification," said Steve Martin, chief deputy of the Franklin County sheriff's office. The office has seven employees keeping an eye on 2,591 offenders.<br /><br />Fairfield County Sheriff Dave Phalen has heard public concern about the coming impact of the court ruling, but he reminded the public that the worst offenders, those classified as sexual predators and child-victim predators, will be unaffected.<br /><br />Under both Megan's Law and the Adam Walsh Act, those offenders are under lifetime registration requirements and are required to report in-person to a sheriff's office every 90 days.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.buckeyesheriffs.org/about.htm">Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association</a>, has been fielding calls from sheriffs who say that some sex offenders are citing the court ruling and insisting they be freed from reporting requirements.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Cornwell has advised the sheriffs to do nothing until they hear from their county prosecutors. The attorney general's office has no estimate</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> of when its reclassification work will be complete and offenders notified.<br /><br />"I'd rather have the offender mad at the sheriff than the public," Cornwell said.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:85%;">This final statement should make every affected registrant very angry. Mr. Cornwell, you should be very afraid of these offenders, as they are the ones who will be filing lawsuits against you and the Ohio Attorney General for failure to comply with the Supreme Court decision.</span><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Contact Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association:<br />6230 Busch Blvd Suite 260<br />Columbus, OH 43229<br />614-431-5500 , Fax 614-431-5665<br /><br />Contact the Ohio Attorney General Office here:<br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515 ….. or….. 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br />Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:<br />614-387-4257</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Ohio Attorney General Office </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Media Contacts:<br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-23334639594016926942010-06-14T17:39:00.009-04:002010-06-16T13:56:24.513-04:00UPDATES, Monday June 14 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Public Defender<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.constitutionalfights.org/">ConstitutionalFights.org</a> spoke to our source at the office of the <a href="http://www.opd.ohio.gov/">Ohio Public Defender</a> regarding <a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p1.aspx">ESORN </a>and <a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p5.aspx">County Sheriff Departments</a> in their refusal to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">(Bodyke vs. Ohio). </a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conference Call</span><br />Our contact person at the <a href="http://www.opd.ohio.gov/">Ohio Public Defender </a>(OPD's) office told us that there was a conference call held on the day after the Court ruling (Friday, June 4, 2010) with the <a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact">Attorney General</a> (AG's) Office and the <a href="http://www.ohiojpc.org/main.html">Ohio Justice Policy Institute</a> (OJPI). During that conference call, the AG office was asked when the updates would be make to come into compliance with the Court ruling. The AG office said that they were trying to create a software program to change the classification of all 26,000 invalidated registrants back to their previous classifications collectively, rather than changing each person individually. The AG suggested that this would be done within a week's time. One week later, our OPD source called the AG office to ask if this had been completed. The AG office asked for another week. So our OPD source will contact the AG office once again on Friday, June 18. The fact remains that the Ohio AG office has had over two weeks to make some progress on updating the ESORN sex offender registry to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court decision and has failed to do so. <a href="http://www.constitutionalfights.org/">ConstitutionalFights.org</a> has spoken to two computer IT professionals (one of whom does contract work for the US Department of Defense). Both of these IT professionals told us the same thing; that this simple database change could be completed in one hour.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">AG Ordering Sheriffs Not to Act</span><br />We also learned today that there is some suspicion that the AG office has ordered local County Sheriff Departments to NOT change any registrants classification at this time. This has not been validated but we do have some reason to believe this may be happening. We were told today that although ESORN falls under the organization of the Ohio AG Office, each County Sheriff Department is responsible for updating and correcting all sex offender registry data. We did not know that the AG has no direct responsibility to update the registry data. But this fact does not dissolve them from responsibility in their failure to direct the County Sheriff Departments to make these updates.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Legal Options</span><br />The OPD has considered some options of what they might pursue if the AG Office does not properly act to comply with the Court order. One option is to bring some sort of "contempt of court" litigation unto the AG Office. We have also heard from others that some sort of "judicial order" might be sought if the AG Office refuses to comply in a timely manner. This litigation would be taken only after some time has passed, however, as a judge would likely allow the AG office at least 30-60 days to comply. Judges would not understand that this simple database update could be done in an hour's time, unless we can bring in a computer professional to testify to this fact. Any IT professionals who might be interested in testifying in such a matter, are asked to contact us <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com?subject=Computer%20IT%20Testimony">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FAQ and Guidelines</span><br />We are still awaiting information about when and if the "FAQ and Guidelines" have been sent from the AG Office to the County Sheriff Departments. We were told by Steve Brown's office ( at Ohio AG ) that these "FAQ and Guidelines" were being drafted last Monday and would be sent soon. That was a week ago. To our knowledge, these documents have still not been sent to the County Sheriff Departments. We have also been told for the past two weeks that letters would be sent from the AG Office to each of the 26,000 reclassified registrants who were affected by the Supreme Court decision. Those letters have not been sent two weeks after the decision came down.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">More Challenges on Senate Bill 10 </span><br />Finally, we talked about the<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/"> remaining cases which are still pending</a> before the Ohio Supreme Court. Two of the three are juvenile cases and the </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span>Chojnacki case</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>deals with reclassification hearings (whether they are criminal or civil). But since the Bodyke case invalidated reclassification, there is little likely to come out of this decision. Since the Supreme Court refused to rule on the Ex Post Facto and other challenges in the Bodyke case, these issues may be brought back up to the Court in other cases. One group of registrants who have not gotten much attention are those who were convicted and given classification hearings between the time Ohio Senate Bill 10 passed the Ohio Legislature ( June 2007) and when Senate Bill 10 was enacted (Jan 2008). Those cases will likely go to the Ohio Supreme Court, as well. So there are new challenges to Ohio Senate Bill 10 in the pipeline.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Please tell us if you see updates</span><br />We need to hear from you. If you are directly affected by this Bodyke decision, please check to see if you are still listed <a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p21_2.aspx">here on the ESORN page</a>. We need to hear from you. Please <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com?subject=ESORN%20updated?">drop us a short email</a> telling us if you 1.) are still improperly listed 2.) have been removed properly, or 3.) have seen your classification changed back properly. Or just send your answer in the Poll at the top right sidebar of this page.<br /><br />Please email us so we can know how many are seeing their status updated:<br /><a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com?subject=ESORN%20updated?">ConstitutionalFights@yahoo.com</a><br /><br />If you have not seen your status updated, please continue to contact the Ohio AG Offices <span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">daily </span>at:<br /><br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515 ..... or..... 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br /><a href="mailto:OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov">OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</a><br />Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:<br />614-387-4257<br /><br />Media Contacts:<br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL <a href="mailto:ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov </a></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-89072929117255603162010-06-13T16:55:00.004-04:002010-06-13T23:47:35.057-04:00Calls for Texas to Drop Out of Federal Adam Walsh Act<span style="font-size:85%;">KXAN - Austin, Texas: Sex Offender Registries</span><br /><br /><object style="height: 172px; width: 212px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EvCbe992sZI"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EvCbe992sZI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="212" height="172"></embed></object><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The fight continues...we have still seen no movement by the Ohio Attorney General's office in complying with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, of June 3, 2010, <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">which invalidated the retroactive application of Ohio's reclassification of ex sex offenders.</a> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The Attorney General's continued refusal to abide by this Supreme Court decision is an illegal act</span>. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Every reader must contact the <a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact">Attorney General Office of Ohio</a> to insist that they stop enforcing this illegal law:</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact">Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,</a> 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515<br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br /><br />Media Contacts:<br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-61702022602981037272010-06-13T16:40:00.002-04:002010-06-13T16:50:51.771-04:00Do Sex Offender Registration Laws Actually Make Us Safer?<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/do_sex_offender_registration_l.html">Cleveland.com</a>: Do sex offender registration laws actually make us safer?<br /><br />Within weeks of the disturbing discovery of 11 decomposing women at the home of convicted sex offender Anthony Sowell -- the suspected serial killer had inspired new statewide legislation. A law, proposed by State Sen. Nina Turner, called for stepped-up registration and monitoring of sex offenders convicted of committing the most serious crimes. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">At least four other proposed laws already were being considered</span> to tweak aspects of Ohio's sex offender registration and notification laws.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">But many now question whether the piling on of laws -- which cost taxpayers millions of dollars each year -- make communities any safer, or just lull them into feeling so. And they wonder whether real predators become lost in the swelling ranks of registering offenders.</span><br /><br />Attorney General Richard Cordray said he understands why people use tragedies, such as the Sowell case, as springboards for lawmaking. "People want to have the satisfaction of responding to things," he said. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"There is always pressure</span> to have Joe Smith's Law or Becky Jones' law to help make sense out of a tragedy."<br /><br />Is that a useful approach? "The answer is, sometimes," Cordray said.<br /><br />However, when it comes to sex crimes, recent long-range studies have concluded that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the costly registration and monitoring laws do not reduce the number of new crimes or new victims.</span><br /><br />A separate Plain Dealer analysis found many local sex offenders ignore residency restrictions or lie about where they are living. And sex offenders on the registry convicted of new sex crimes during the time period reviewed <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">most often did not re-offend near where they were registered as living.</span><br /><br />Those types of revelations and concerns about the overall impact of sex offender laws have spurred a divergent coalition of sexual assault victim advocates, public defenders and local officials to call for Ohio to rethink its approach to the complicated issue.<br /><br />"We think that these type of laws are <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">well intended, but they are misguided and very limiting</span>," Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Megan O'Bryan said.<br /><br />O'Bryan said laws <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">create a false sense of security for the public and concentrate a vast amount of resources and attention toward a small number of offenders</span> -- the very few who are caught and prosecuted.<br /><br />The concept also capitalizes on the fear of stranger attacks, when family members, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">friends or acquaintances commit most sex crimes.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Just like the public needs to be educated about these issues, so do the lawmakers," </span>O'Bryan said.<br /><br />Lawmakers need to support prevention, education and treatment for both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, she said.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Policy driven by anger</span><br /><br />It has been more than 15 years since vivid details of the rape and strangulation of a 7-year-old New Jersey girl ignited a much-publicized national crusade to protect the public from sex offenders living among us.<br /><br />Megan Kanka's parent's anguish turned to anger when they became aware that Megan's killer -- a man who moved in 30 yards from their doorstep -- already had been convicted of sexually assaulting another child.<br /><br />The emotion fueled a wave of state and federal legislation in the mid-1990s aimed at convicted sex offenders.<br /><br />The laws were intended to make the public safer by forcing those convicted of sex crimes to register their addresses with local police and, in cases of serious or repeat offenders, to notify their neighbors.<br /><br />At the time, many states and localities -- including Ohio -- <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">already had laws on the books forcing certain sex criminals to register with the police.</span><br /><br />Ohio's law, originally passed in 1963, called for "habitual sex offenders" to register their addresses for a decade. Those registries included fingerprints and photographs.<br /><br />But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the information was not public</span>, and enforcement was haphazard. And the cost and effectiveness of the sweeping laws were a secondary consideration.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Program costs become burden</span><br /><br />A year ago, a federally funded study by the New Jersey Department of Corrections and Rutgers University examined the impact of "Megan's Law" in the state.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The study found the registries and notification did not reduce the number of new offenses or new victims. </span>Numbers of reported sex offenses have dropped nationwide in recent years. But that decline started before the laws were in place.<br /><br />The researchers concluded that "given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's law on sexual offenses, the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">growing costs may not be justifiable</span>." They estimated the statewide cost in New Jersey to be at least $5.1 million a year.<br /><br />Cuyahoga County Sheriff Reid, whose office is required to register, verify and publish where sex offenders live, said he could not say how much the department pays for the efforts.<br /><br />But he said to comply with the laws, he has to pay salaries for deputies to register offenders, cars for them to drive and verify addresses, to update the office's website identifying offenders, and postage for sending out notification. The entire cost falls to the department.<br /><br />In 2008, Ohio trumpeted its accomplishment of becoming the first state to comply with a sweeping set of federal laws that sought to standardize how sex offenders are categorized and registered across the country, called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.<br /><br />Only two other states have complied with the federal mandate so far and some have <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">declined to do so even though they stand to lose some federal funding.</span><br /><br />Before 2008, Ohio had a system that judged the risk of sex offenders to the community on a case-by-case basis, through psychological assessments and a hearing in front of a judge.<br /><br />Now offenders are classified based solely on their offense. The majority of offenders are in the "most-serious" category, which forces them into more rigorous registration for life.<br /><br />The Ohio Supreme Court last week pushed slightly back on the Adam Walsh system in<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> a decision that erased the retroactive nature of the law.</span> So thousands of sex offenders who were reclassified for crimes committed before 2008 will go back to their previous court-ordered sex offender classifications. Those convicted of sex crimes in 2008 or after will register with the new system.<br /><br />Some think the new, more stringent rules work. Others think slapping the same label on people based on their offense and not the likelihood to re-offend is a waste of resources.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"I think we took a huge step backward when we threw out our risk-based system and implemented this offense system," </span>said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the state public defender's office.<br /><br />It makes more sense to center attention on offenders that mental health experts deemed most likely to commit new crimes, she said.<br /><br />"The folks that are more likely to re-offend will now get lost in the masses," she said.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Falling through the cracks</span><br /><br />Anthony Sowell still awaits trial on charges that he killed the 11 women found in his home on Imperial Avenue and raped or attacked several others. He has pleaded not guilty.<br /><br />Sowell's trial may answer some questions for the community.<br /><br />But what it probably won't reveal is whether any specific laws would have prevented the tragedy.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Sowell was a registered sex offender from the time he stepped out of prison in 2005,</span> where he had been for attempted rape. At the time, he was seen as a low risk to re-offend, and his neighbors weren't notified when he moved in.<br /><br />Even when the law changed in 2008 and he was classified as a higher-risk offender, his neighbors still weren't notified because he hadn't moved to a new address.<br /><br />But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sheriff's deputies knocked on his door periodically, and he chatted them up </span>as the women's bodies were in his home and buried in his yard.<br /><br />Deputies, in fact, paid a surprise visit to his home on the same day he is accused of raping one woman.<br /><br />Cordray said he thinks law enforcement still needs more leeway in monitoring sex offenders considered the most serious, such as allowing officers to enter the offenders' homes.<br /><br />"Nobody went into the Sowell house because they didn't have the authority to," Cordray said.<br /><br />But will continuing to change the laws make a difference?<br /><br />"We just have to be realistic," Borror said.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "We are never going to create a completely air-tight system. I would just hope that at some point Ohio would be willing to pull back from this reactionary way of making sex offender policy and go about it in a more deliberate way." </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-69156449263061990362010-06-12T12:46:00.002-04:002010-06-12T12:53:25.066-04:00Ohio Jail Deputy Allowed Inmates to Assault Alleged Sex Offender<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.fox8.com/news/sns-ap-oh--inmateassault-deputy,0,5723754.story">Fox8.com</a>: Authorities say deputy at Ohio jail allowed inmates to assault alleged sex offender.<br /><br />Ohio (AP) — Authorities say a former sheriff's deputy who worked at a northeast Ohio jail is accused of felonious assault and other crimes because he <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">turned a blind eye while four inmates attacked an accused sex offender.</span><br /><br />Twenty-nine-year-old <a href="http://www.medinasheriff.com/Staff.htm">Brian Young </a>also faces charges of abduction, dereliction of duty and unauthorized use of property in the alleged assault at the <a href="http://www.medinasheriff.com/">Medina County</a> jail in December.<br /><br />Young is accused of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sharing with the four inmates booking information on the alleged sex offender</span>, who was accused of raping a child. A prosecutor says <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Young then did nothing when the inmates attacked the man.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">You think this is an isolated incident? Think again!</span><br /><br />Young has posted a $10,000 bond and faces a Monday arraignment. A sheriff's official says he retired on a disability pension.<br /><br />See Medina County Sheriff Staff and contact information<a href="http://www.medinasheriff.com/Staff.htm"> here.</a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-36635952087223108852010-06-10T23:40:00.002-04:002010-06-10T23:43:56.877-04:00More on Bodyke vs Ohio<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-court-give-sex-offenders-old-classifications-743703.html">daytondailynews.com</a>: Ohio court: Give sex offenders old classifications.<br /><a href="http://briefcase8.com/2010/06/04/what-bodyke-means/">The Briefcase</a>: What Bodyke means.<br /><br />In State v. Bodyke, by a 5-1 vote, the Ohio Supreme Court yesterday struck down the portion of the Adam Walsh Act allowing the attorney general to change the registrations of offenders convicted before the Act’s passage in 2007. The way that it arrived at that decision, and some parts of the opinion, proves most interesting.<br /><br />Bodyke demonstrated the salient unfairness of the new law. Back in 1999, Bodyke had entered a no contest plea to a count of sexual battery. The judge gave him two years in prison and classified him as sexually oriented offender. That was the lowest classification of sex offenders under the current law, and required him to register with the county sheriff every year for ten years. After the AWA was passed in 2007, Bodyke got a letter from the Ohio Attorney General telling him that under the new act he’d been reclassified as a Tier III offender — the highest classification — and would now be required to register every 90 days for life, and was subject to the notification provisions as well: everyone who resided within 1,000 feet of his residence would be told that a sex offender was living in their midst.<br /><br />In my post about the oral argument in the case, I’d mentioned that the separation of powers issue was the one most troubling for some of the justices: you have the legislative branch giving the executive branch the power to modify orders made by the judicial branch. You needn’t have aced 12th grade civics to see the problems with that, and and after a dutiful exposition on the history and development of that Madisonian concept, the court strikes down the provisions of AWA allowing for reclassification of offenders. That’s reclassification: if a person wasn’t classified before, but is now subject to classification by the AWA, Bodyke doesn’t prevent that.<br /><br />But this is where it gets interesting. The opinion devotes two pages to a discussion of stare decisis. That’s understandable in the context of the arguments raised in Bodyke: in addition to the separation of powers issue, Bodyke contended that the AWA violated ex post facto and retroactivity principles, and violated double jeopardy as well. Those arguments had been raised in challenges to previous changes in sex offender registration laws, and in each case the court had rejected them. But the discussion of stare decisis is less understandable in the context of the result here. Although one of the previous cases had raised a separation of powers argument, without going into detail, the argument in that case was not remotely close to the one Bodyke was making, and the court wouldn’t have had to overrule the earlier case in order to come up with the result it did in Bodyke.<br /><br />Justice O’Donnell concurs in the separation of powers holding, but dissents from the majority’s discussion of stare decisis, finding it wholly unnecessay, and using a cute quote from then-judge, now US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, that “the cardinal principle of judicial restraint [is that] if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.” (One could make a fair showing that in Roberts’ career on the High Court, he has observed this principle mainly in the breach, but that’s another story.) But what’s more disturbing to O’Donnell than that the majority discusses stare decisis at all is what it says about it.<br /><br />I’ve discussed before the problems with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Westfield v. Galatis, where the court laid down a three-part test for determining whether it should overrule a prior case. As I’ve pointed out, the test is so restrictive that since Galatis was handed down in 2003, the court hasn’t overruled a single case, going through all kinds of gyrations to avoid doing so. In Bodyke, the majority goes completely off the reservation, deciding that stare decisis is “inapplicable” to constitutional claims, and “is not controlling in cases presenting a constitutional question.” That’s too much for O’Donnell, who rightly notes that Galatis’ tri-partite test was derived in part from US Supreme Court decisions concerning the value of precedent in cases involving — you guessed it — constitutional questions.<br /><br />And what’s involved here is more than just an abstract debate. The heart of the argument over sex offender laws is whether they’re “punitive” or “remedial.” When the court first confronted the issue in 1998 in State v. Cook, the court unanimously held that the provisions of Megan’s Law fell into the latter category. The court reached the same result ten years later in State v. Ferguson, but in that case, three members of the court concluded that the amendments to Megan’s Law had made the registration and notification requirements sufficiently onerous that they tipped over into “punitive” territory. And those provisions were much less Draconian than those contained in the AWA, discomfiting the justices even more, as was evident two weeks ago in the oral argument on another case involving that statute (discussed here).<br /><br />So what’s all this mean? Let’s say the court is unshackled from the stare decisis effects of Cook and Ferguson, and thus is free to conclude that the AWA is indeed punitive. If sex offender registration and notification requirements are deemed punitive, you get into some due process issues. Remember, AWA classification is offense-base, as opposed to offender-based: you commit a certain crime, you get a certain classification. Couldn’t you argue that you’re entitled to a hearing, as you were under the old law, to determine whether your actual characteristics — your history, the facts of the offense, and so forth — showed you were really a threat to society? And doesn’t the separation of powers issue appear in this context? After all, punishment is the sole prerogative of the judicial branch.<br /><br />So the immediate effect of Bodyke is that the 26,000 offenders who were reclassified under the AWA now have their previous classifications restored. But the language of the opinion portends the possibility that it may be raised to attack any future classifications as well.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-89819364553215822342010-06-09T16:00:00.009-04:002010-06-09T23:27:12.975-04:00UPDATES, Wednesday June 9 : Ohio Esorn and Public Defender<span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">UPDATE, Wednesday June 9, (4:00 pm):</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.constitutionalfights.org/">Constitutionalfights.org</a> spoke with an Ohio County Public Defender, Steve Brown of the Ohio Attorney General's office and Ted Hart (Ohio AG Esorn Deputy Director of Media Relations) today.<br /><br />The unnamed Ohio County Public Defender had no new information about when we can expect to see compliance action from the Attorney General and Sheriff Departments, but did talk to us about the Ohio Supreme Court decision (<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-state-v-bodyke-slip-opinion-no-2010-ohio-2424/">Bodyke vs, Ohio</a>). As we had expected, he agrees that the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Supreme Court basically bypassed looking at any of the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy or other constitutional challenges</span> in the Bodyke decision. He feels that this '<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/lesson-separation-of-powers/">Separation of Powers</a>' issue really got under the skin of the Court, as was clear from watching the oral arguments. Courts do not like when Legislatures try to bypass their constitutional role. Therefore, these other constitutional arguments are still undecided at the Ohio Supreme Court level and could be brought back in other challenges.<br /><br />As for the idea of pursuing some judicial order from the courts in order to force the hand of the local Sheriff Departments, he suggested that we wait 14-21 days before we pursue such course. As we all know, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">government is always slow and usually incompetent.</span> This is why they have taken absolutely no action since last Thursday June 3rd. If we do not see any concrete action by the last week of June, he suggests that we contact our local Public Defender's Offices and ask them about pursuing such legal action.<br /><br />Steve Brown , of the Ohio Attorney General's office still had "no time line" for when action will be taken by the A.G. office. This is the same story we got from Ted Hart, A.G.Deputy Director of Media Relations. I asked both why we cannot see at least some action being taken. Steve Brown's office told me on Monday June 7th that he was in the process of sending out <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Guidelines and FAQ's to the county Sheriff Departments"</span>, directing them as to what to do when invalidated registrants contact their offices.<br /><br />I asked him today if they had been sent to Sheriff Departments. He said "no".<br />I asked him when they would be sent. He replied that they "have no time line for anything".<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Shouldn't the Ohio Attorney General's office, at the very least, have a time line formulated a week after the Supreme Court ruling?</span> Both of these two bureaucrats have told me repeatedly that letters will be sent to all those registrants who are affected by the ruling. When asked when these letters will be sent, neither would give us a date range. Steve Brown told me that his office is receiving many calls from citizens. Ted Hart said that his office was receiving very few calls from citizens about this re-classification process<br /><br />Look ...we all know that if the Supreme Court or Ohio Legislature had somehow instated some new registration requirement for sex offenders, they would miraculously be able to start the process immediately of updating their computer database and adding all the new registered sex offenders virtually overnight. But because they are not happy about this Court decision,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> they are acting like spoiled little children and dragging their feet on this, refusing to comply until forced to do so.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> </span><br /><br />We spoke to two computer IT professionals (one of whom consults for the U.S. Federal Government) to ask them how long the process of updating such a database would take. Both gave the same answer: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> " it can be done easily in an hour".</span><br /><br />This is why <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we all must call them daily </span>to force them to take action and comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Anyone concerned about reforming sex offender laws must call, email or write to the<a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact"> Ohio Attorney General' office</a> daily until they agree to comply with the law.</span></span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Help be a watchdog:</span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/action-item-we-need-watchdogs-in-ohio/"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 38px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_8bVF0IkI/AAAAAAAABHo/fqd1z42IwzM/s200/400px-OhioWatchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480876817981383234" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_7rDx04HI/AAAAAAAABHg/JrJGKoHpRmU/s1600/Ohio-Watchdog-Social-Site-Graphic-v1_bigger.jpg"><br /></a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-44989046957862333442010-06-09T13:33:00.003-04:002010-06-09T13:40:40.758-04:00Lesson: Separation of Powers<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_Qmk9_lHI/AAAAAAAABHY/2QzI2s5srmY/s1600/SeparationofPowers.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 126px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA_Qmk9_lHI/AAAAAAAABHY/2QzI2s5srmY/s200/SeparationofPowers.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480828632710485106" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/home/2010/6/7/separation-of-powers-ohio-supreme-court-will-not-allow-state.html">basicallylaw.com </a>(Legal Information and Discussion For Students and Lay People):<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution">Separation of Powers</a>? Ohio Supreme Court Will Not Allow State Attorney General To Reclassify Sex Offenders Already Classified By Court Order.</span><br /><br />In law school, I took a class involving issues of federalism and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers">separation of powers</a>. On my exam, the professor asked about constitutional ways one branch can infringe on the other branches even though it breaks the spirit of the Constitution. For example, what is to stop the President of the United States, as commander in chief, from marching the army on Congress? In any event, the judicial branch has little at its disposal to check the other branches. Granted, the judiciary can declare a law unconstitutional, but what if the other branches ignore the judiciary. What if the judiciary claims that the separation of powers prevents the other branches from infringing on the judiciary’s domain? That is what happened in the following case. Should the judiciary dictate to other branches that it is infringing on its area of power?<br /><br />Read the opinion <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-2424.pdf">Ohio v. Bodyke</a><br /><br />Like every state, Ohio passed a sex offender registration law in the wake of the death of Megan Kanka in New Jersey. Under that law, Ohio classified sex offenders into three different categories, and the offender’s requirements with respect to registration and related issue depends on the classification. Later, the Federal government, in order to unify sex offender registration law, required states, in order to receive federal funds to fight crime, to pass a uniform registration and classification law.<br /><br />Ohio complied and passed its own Adam Walsh law. The law also had three different classifications of sex offenders. The requirements with respect to each classification differed from what the previous law required. Additionally, the law designated the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders who had been classified after the adjudication under the previous law. Reclassified individuals, who are now subject to more stringent laws, sued and claimed that the reclassification violated the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/us-constitution-ex-post-facto-lesson/">ex post facto </a>clause of the Ohio Constitution. Instead of addressing the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/us-constitution-ex-post-facto-lesson/">ex post facto argument</a> (since courts have continuously upheld sex offender registration laws against <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/us-constitution-ex-post-facto-lesson/">ex post facto</a> challenges), the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated those sections of the law reclassifying sex offenders because it violated principles of separation of powers.<br /><br />Even though the Ohio Constitution does not specifically address the separation of powers, the doctrine is implicitly embedded in the framework of the Constitution. The essential principle underlying the policy of the division of powers of government into three departments is that powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments, and further that none of them ought to possess directly or indirectly an overruling influence over the others.<br /><br />When the judiciary is going to assert that another branch is infringing on its power, it must do so sparingly. Still, the courts must guard against the other branches from reviewing judicial decisions or reopening final judgments. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The Ohio law infringes this basic tenet of the separation of powers.</span><br /><br />Individuals had already been classified as sex offenders through court actions. These classifications result in different registration requirements for these individuals. It also allows for how long one must register as a sex offender. The reclassification puts a greater burden on these individuals, and all contrary to a court order. As the Court notes:<br /><br />The legislative attempt to reopen journalized final judgments imposing registration and community notification requirements on offenders so that new requirements may be imposed suffers the same constitutional infirmity. It does not matter that the legislature has the authority to enact or amend laws requiring sex offenders to register or that the current Sex Offender Act does not order the courts to reopen final judgments. The fact remains that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the General Assembly cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Instead of declaring the entire Adam Walsh law unconstitutional, the Court just severed those provisions giving the Attorney General the power to reclassify sex offenders from the bill and invalidate them as unconstitutional</span>. Thus, sex offenders classified under the old law will be classified as such.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-40954542982174672102010-06-07T23:40:00.009-04:002010-06-18T01:52:11.479-04:00Action Item: We Need Watchdogs in Ohio (and from outside Ohio)<span style="font-size:85%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA2-CA-UIiI/AAAAAAAABHQ/lut29OcjUUI/s1600/Watchdog.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 134px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TA2-CA-UIiI/AAAAAAAABHQ/lut29OcjUUI/s200/Watchdog.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5480245263410143778" border="0" /></a>We have seen absolutely <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">no action</span> on the part of the Ohio Attorney General or Ohio County Sheriff Departments in complying with the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Ohio Supreme Court ruling last week</a>, which invalidated the reclassification of Senate Bill 10 (Ohio's sex offender law /Adam Walsh Act law). Each day which passes, allows the illegal enforcement of a law which has been <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">invalidated and ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court</a>. Make no mistake: the state's failure, or refusal, to comply with this ruling is indeed, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">an illegal act.</span><br /><br />Months ago, we saw the Kentucky Attorney General refuse to comply by the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling which <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/kentucky-supreme-court-ruling-ex-post-facto/">struck down the retroactive residency restrictions in that state</a>. He dragged his feet as long as possible before being <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/us-supreme-court-denies-kentucky-ag-petition/">denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.</a><br /><br />For this reason, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we need all readers to be WatchDogs. Wherever you reside, if you are concerned about unconstitutional sex offender laws in this country we need you to call and write the following agencies daily</span> until they agree to abide by the law. We have been doing this but they are showing anger against us now. So <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we need everyone's help.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ohio Attorney General Office:</span><br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215<br />(800) 282-0515<br />Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.<br />Email Ohio ESORN at <a href="mailto:OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov">OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</a><br /><br />Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio<br /><a href="mailto:justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a><br />614-387-4257<br />FAX 614-466-5087<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">OHLEG Support<br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br /><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Media Contacts:</span><br /><br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018<br /><br />Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286<br />EMAIL <a href="mailto:ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a> (614) 728-4127<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Contact list for <a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p5.aspx">Ohio County Sheriff Departments</a><a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p5.aspx"></a> (Ask to speak with the SORN or Sex Offender Office):<br /><br /></span></span><table class="displayTable" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><th align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;">Sheriff name</span></th> <th align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;">Phone number</span></th> <th align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;">Web site</span></th> <th align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;">eSORN Site</span></th> <th align="left"><span style="font-size:85%;">County</span></th> </tr> <tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Kermit Howard</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 544-2314</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.bright.net/%7Eacso/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/adams" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Adams</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Samuel A. Crish</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 993-1435</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.acso-oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Allen" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Allen</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Estel Risner</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 289-3911</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ashlandcounty.org/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Ashland" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ashland</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">William Johnson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(440) 576-3540</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ashtabulacountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Ashtabula" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ashtabula</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Patrick Kelly</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 593-6633</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.athenssheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Athens" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Athens</span></td></tr><tr class="DThoverResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Allen F. Solomon</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 739-6565</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.auglaizecounty.org/sheriff" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Auglaize" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Auglaize</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Fred Thompson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 695-7933</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.belmontsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Belmont" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Belmont</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Dwayne Wenninger</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 378-4435</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.browncountyohiosheriff.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Brown" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Brown</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Richard K. Jones</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(513) 785-1246</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.butlersheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Butler" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Butler</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Dale R. Williams</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 627-2141</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.carrollcountyohio.net/sheriff.html" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Carroll" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Carroll</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Brent A. Emmons</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 652-1311</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.champaign.oh.us/Sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Champaign" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Champaign</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Gene Kelly</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 328-2537</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.clarkcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Clark" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Clark</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">A.J. Tim Rodenberg</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(513) 732-7500</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.clermontsheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Clermont" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Clermont</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ralph D. Fizer Jr.</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 382-1611</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.clintonsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Clinton" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Clinton</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Raymond L. Stone</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 424-4065</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.colcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Columbiana" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Columbiana</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Timothy Rogers</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 622-2411</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.coshoctonsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Coshocton" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Coshocton</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ronny J. Shawber</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 562-7906</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.crawfordcountysheriffohio.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Crawford" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Crawford</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Gerald T. McFaul</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(216) 443-5567</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Cuyahoga" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Cuyahoga</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Toby L. Spencer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 547-7337</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.darkecountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Darke" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Darke</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David J. Westrick</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 784-1155</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.defiance-county.com/dcso/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Defiance" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Defiance</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Walter L. Davis III</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 833-2845</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.delawarecountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Delaware" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Delaware</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Terry M. Lyons</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 625-7951</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.erie-county-ohio.net/sheriff/sheriff.htm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Erie" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Erie</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David Phalen</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 681-7239</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriff.fairfield.oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Fairfield" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Fairfield</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Vernon Stanforth</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 333-3504</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.faycoso.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Fayette" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Fayette</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">James Karnes</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(614) 462-3351</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriff.franklin.oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Franklin" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Franklin</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Darell Merillat</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 335-4010</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.fultoncountyoh.com/fcso/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Fulton" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Fulton</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Joseph R Browning</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 446-4614</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.galliasheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Gallia" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Gallia</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Daniel C McClelland</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(440) 279-2009</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriff.geauga.oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Geauga" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Geauga</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Gene Fischer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 562-4820</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.greene.oh.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Greene" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Greene</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Michael R. McCauley</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 439-4455</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.guernseysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Guernsey" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Guernsey</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Simon L. Leis, Jr.</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(513) 946-6230</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.hcso.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Hamilton" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Hamilton</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Michael E. Heldman</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 424-7235</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.hancocksheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Hancock" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Hancock</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Keith Everhart</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 673-1268</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.hardinsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Hardin" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Hardin</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Mark Miller</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 942-2197</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://pages.eohio.net/sheriff1/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Harrison" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Harrison</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">John J. Nye</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 592-8010</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.henrycountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Henry" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Henry</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ronald D Ward</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 840-6240</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.highlandcoso.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Highland" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Highland</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Lanny E. North</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 385-2131</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.hockingsheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Hocking" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Hocking</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Timothy W. Zimmerly</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 674-1936</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/www.holmescountysheriff.org" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Holmes" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Holmes</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Dane Howard</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 668-1996</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Huron" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Huron</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">John Shasteen</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 286-6464</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.jacksonso.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Jackson" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Jackson</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Fred J. Abdalla</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 283-8600</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.jeffersoncountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Jefferson" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Jefferson</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David Barber</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 393-6800</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.knoxcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Knox" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Knox</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Daniel A. Dunlap</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(440) 350-5676</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.lakecountyohio.org/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Lake" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Lake</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Timothy Sexton</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 532-3525</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://lcohiosheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Lawrence" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Lawrence</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Randy Thorp</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 670-5525</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.lcounty.com/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Licking" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Licking</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Andrew J Smith</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 599-3247</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.logan.oh.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Logan" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Logan</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Phil Stammitti</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(440) 329-3709</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.loraincountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Lorain" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Lorain</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">James A Telb</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 213-4269</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.lucascountysheriff.org/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Lucas" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Lucas</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">James P. Sabin</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 852-1332</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.madisonsheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/madison" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Madison</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Randall Wellington</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 480-5055</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.mahoningsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Mahoning" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Mahoning</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Tim Bailey</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 382-8244</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://mcoprx.co.marion.oh.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Marion" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Marion</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Neil Hassinger</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 725-9116</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.medinasheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Medina" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Medina</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Robert E. Beegle</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 992-3371</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Meigs" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Meigs</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Jeff Grey</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 586-5770</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.mercercountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Mercer" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Mercer</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles Cox</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 440-6085</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.miami.oh.us/sheriff" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Miami" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Miami</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Charles R. Black</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 472-1612</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/www.monroesheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Monroe" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Monroe</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Phil Plummer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 224-3995</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.montgomery.oh.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Montgomery" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Montgomery</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas Jenkins Sr.</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 962-4044</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Morgan" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Morgan</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Steven Brenneman</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 947-1151</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.morrowcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Morrow" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Morrow</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Matthew J Lutz</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 452-3637</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ohiomuskingumsheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Muskingum" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Muskingum</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Stephen S Hannum</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 732-5631</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/noblecountysheriffsoffice.org" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Noble" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Noble</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Robert L. Bratton</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 734-6826</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ottawacountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Ottawa" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ottawa</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David Harrow</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 399-3791</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.pauldingohsheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Paulding" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Paulding</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">William Randall Barker</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 342-4123</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://perrycountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Perry" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Perry</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Dwight E. Radcliff</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(800) 472-5245</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.pickaway.org/sheriff.htm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Pickaway" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Pickaway</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">RICHARD N HENDERSON</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 947-2111</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.pikecosheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Pike" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Pike</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David W. Doak</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 297-3890</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.portage.oh.us/sheriff.htm" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Portage" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Portage</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Michael Simpson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 456-6314</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.preblecountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Preble" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Preble</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">James Beutler</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 523-3208</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriffoff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Putnam" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Putnam</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">J. Steve Sheldon</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 774-3550</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriffrichlandcounty.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Richland" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Richland</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">George W. Lavender</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 773-1186</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.rosssheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Ross" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Ross</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David Gangwer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 332-2613</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sanduskycountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Sandusky" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Sandusky</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Marty V. Donini</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 355-8261</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://sciotocountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Scioto" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Scioto</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas Steyer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 447-3456</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.senecacountyso.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Seneca" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Seneca</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Doug Schlagetter</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 494-2119</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://shelbycountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Shelby" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Shelby</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Timothy Swanson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 430-3800</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriff.co.stark.oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Stark" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Stark</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Drew Alexander</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 643-2164</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.summit.oh.us/sheriff" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Summit" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Summit</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas L. Altiere</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 675-2440</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sheriff.co.trumbull.oh.us/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Trumbull" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Trumbull</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Walter R. Wilson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 308-6637</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.co.tuscarawas.oh.us/sheriff/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Tuscarawas" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Tuscarawas</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Rocky Nelson</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(937) 645-4131</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://w2.co.union.oh.us/Sheriff" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Union" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Union</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Stan D. Owens</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 238-3866</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.vanwertcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/vanwert" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Van Wert</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">David N. Hickey</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 596-5242</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Vinton" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Vinton</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Larry Sims</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(513) 695-1522</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wcsooh.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Warren" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Warren</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Larry R. Mincks SR.</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(740) 376-7070</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.washingtoncountysheriff.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Washington" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Washington</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Thomas G. Maurer</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(330) 287-5749</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://waynecountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Wayne" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Wayne</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Kevin A. Beck</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 636-3151</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.williamscosheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Williams" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Williams</span></td></tr><tr class="DTresultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="norm(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Mark Wasylyshyn</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 354-1412</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.woodcountysheriff.com/" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Wood" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Wood</span></td></tr><tr class="DTaltResultRow" onmouseover="h(this)" onmouseout="normAlt(this)"><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Michael R. Hetzel</span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">(419) 294-2362</span></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><br /></td><td align="center"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://ohio.esorn.net/Wyandot" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153);" target="_blank">view</a></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;">Wyandot</span></td></tr></tbody></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-33734068357561522402010-06-07T18:43:00.005-04:002010-06-07T18:52:13.079-04:00From Three Back to Five : Ohio Sex Offender Re- Re- Classification<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wtap.com/news/headlines/95661684.html?ref=684">wtap.com</a>: From Three Back to Five: Tens of thousands of sex offenders in the state of Ohio will be reclassified...as the result of a <a href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2010/06/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not.html">state supreme court ruling.</a><br /><br />Right now, Ohio has three different categories in which registered sex offenders are placed. It used to have five. Now, with a ruling by the state high court on the constitutionality of a tough new law approved a few years ago, the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">classification list will go back to five</span>.<br /><br />"We have, I believe, three individuals in our county, who went from one category under the five (tier system) to the three (tier system), and they were due to drop off of being required to register," says one Ohio county Sheriff Larry Mincks. "Now, we have those three individuals who are going to go back to the old category, and they're not going to be required to register at all."<br /><br />What may be more of a problem is the administration of these changes. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">When the law was approved, there was no money allocated for its oversight by local law enforcement officials. </span>And the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">offenders must be notified of the changes.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"The attorney general will send out letters to all these people,"</span> Sheriff Mincks says.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "If these letters came back as undeliverable, or are no longer at that address, then, it is mandated by the sheriff's office to find where those people are, and to notify them of that change in their registrations."</span><br /><br />The court ruling does not affect any offenders who were convicted after the law went into effect at the beginning of 2008. <br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">More challenges to Ohio's Sex Offender laws are still under review by the Ohio Supreme Court.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-68352597164682218902010-06-07T14:28:00.005-04:002010-06-07T15:42:42.614-04:00UPDATES, Monday June 7 : Ohio E-sorn Public Registry and County Sheriffs<span style="font-size:85%;">This page is updated throughout the day:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE</span>, Monday June 7, (2:00 pm):</span><br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.constitutionalfights.org/">Constitutionalfights.org</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> called the </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p4.aspx">Ohio Attorney General's OHLEG office</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> today and spoke with the </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2010/06/update-friday-june-4-ohio-e-sorn-public.html">office of Steve Brown again</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. His office representative told us that Steve Brown was drafting guidelines and an FAQ to be sent to County Sheriff Departments instructing them as to what to do in order to remove invalid registrants from the Sex Offender Registry in their counties as a result of </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2010/06/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not.html">Thursday's Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Bodyke vs, Ohio.</a><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Readers should </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.buckeyesheriffs.org/Ohio%20Sheriffs.htm">contact their County Sheriff Office</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> to ask about these guidelines as soon as possible. We are still awaiting a return call from our County Sheriff office. You must help to keep the pressure on these state and local authorities to assure they do what they are legally required to do to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court decision.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE</span>, Monday June 7, (3:30 pm):</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We received a return call from Montgomery County Sheriff Office which denied receiving any guidelines yet from the Ohio Attorney General OHLEG office. We were assured that action would be taken as soon as they receive these guidelines but that the Attorney General Office was still meeting to discuss what the Ohio Supreme Court ruling actually meant ! What? They still don't know what the ruling means??</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In the meantime, readers must be vigilant and aware that some Ohio legislators are still planning to skirt the Ohio Supreme Court ruling and introduce new sex offender legislation:</span><br /><br /></span> <div style="font-weight: bold;"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><span style="cursor: pointer; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1275939490_6">Ohio Senators Tim Shaffer</span> and Tim Grendell have both made public statements regarding the Bodyke decision implying they will propose new sex offender legislation.</span></p></div> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><br /></span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" >Contact them at:</span> </p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;" ><br />Senate Building<br />1 Capitol Square, 1st Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215<br /><a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/tim-grendell.html">Tim Grendell</a>: Phone: 614) 644-7718 Email: <a href="mailto:SD18@senate.state.oh.us">SD18@senate.state.oh.us</a><br /><a href="http://www.ohiosenate.gov/tim-schaffer.html">Tim Schaffer:</a> Phone: (614) 466-5838 Email: <a href="mailto:SD31@senate.state.oh.us">SD31@senate.state.oh.us</a><br /><br /></span><br /></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE</span>, Monday June 7, </span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Check back later for more updates...</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-9685882300759373202010-06-04T10:13:00.017-04:002010-06-04T18:20:30.611-04:00UPDATES, Friday June 4 : Ohio E-sorn Public Registry Attorney<span style="font-size:85%;">This page is updated throughout the day:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE,</span> Friday June 4, (10:00 am):<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/">Constitutionalfights.org</a> called the Ohio Attorney General's office and waited on hold for over 15 minutes. After asking to speak to the person in charge of the updating of the registry database, we were eventually forwarded to an ATTORNEY, Justin Hykes ! This is humorous, as they must know they are on legal thin ice here. I asked when we can expect the database to be corrected. He said "we have no idea when it will get done". I pressed him on this at least three times and he refused to give any estimate of a time table for when we can expect these people's names and photos to be removed from their public registry. He said that they are "working on it", but we all know updating a computer database is a simple job and does not take long to edit. I then asked if they are concerned about lawsuits if they fail to remove these people from the registry promptly now that these listings are in violation of the law. His response was "no, we are not concerned and we have an immunity disclaimer built into the esorn website" <a href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2010/06/ohio-next-step-what-we-must-do.html">When you call</a>, perhaps you can ask for Justin Hykes and not have to wait so long on hold.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Any readers who are legal professional are asked to stand by on this. We may need to pursue this legally if they are negligent in removing these people from the Ohio Public Sex Offender Registry. Please forward any legal advice on this matter to </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">constitutionalfights@yahoo.com</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">UPDATE</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> , Friday June 4, (5:00pm) :</span><br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/">Constitutionalfights.org</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> received a return call from Steve Brown with the </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact">Ohio Attorney General's office</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. While he again said that the AG office can give no estimate of when these invalidated registrants will be removed from the State Sex Offender Registry, he did suggest we call our local county sheriff offices. He said they are responsible for updating registry entries and therefore may be able to remove the invalidated registrants from the list sooner than the Ohio AG offices can do so.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">So we did call the </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.sheriffalerts.com/cap_main.php?office=53969">Montgomery County Sheriff Department office</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.sheriffalerts.com/cap_main.php?office=53969">Detective Julie Stephens </a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, in responding to our informing her of this information from Steve Brown, said "Oh, then we will start working on that on Monday ( June 7)". We informed her that we would be checking back in on this matter as next week comes.</span><br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact">Ohio Attorney General Office</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">:</span><br /></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215</span></span></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(800) 282-0515</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 7 p.m.<br />Email Ohio ESORN at <a href="mailto:OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov">OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov</a></span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Click here to </span><a style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.buckeyesheriffs.org/Ohio%20Sheriffs.htm">contact your local Ohio County Sheriff Department</a><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"></span><br /></span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Late this afternoon, we received the following email from Ohio AG Office:</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">While I can't yet provide a timetable - I can confirm that staff members, including IT specialists and attorneys, are working diligently to make the necessary changes to eSORN in order to comply with the court's ruling."</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Ted Hart</span></span> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" ><br />Deputy Director of Media Relations<br />Office of the Ohio Attorney General<br />PHONE 614-728-4127<br />EMAIL <a href="mailto:ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov">ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a></span><br /><img src="http://www.globetrackr.com/dynimg/000c002645b8093ffb548f98d32011d4/trackonly.gif" />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-70855006277739830822010-06-04T02:53:00.003-04:002010-06-04T03:02:10.017-04:00Attorney General Statement in Response to Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v. Bodyke<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/June-2010/Attorney-General-Statement-in-Response-to-Ohio-Sup">ohioattorneygeneral.gov</a>: Attorney General Statement in Response to Ohio Supreme Court Decision in State v. Bodyke.<br /><br />6/3/2010 (Columbus, Ohio) – In a narrowly tailored decision today, the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act on separation-of-powers grounds. The act was passed by the General Assembly in July 2007 and became effective on Jan. 1, 2008. In response to the court’s decision in the case of State v. Bodyke, Attorney General Richard Cordray released the following statement:<br /><br />“We are digesting the Supreme Court’s decision, which appears to be limited in scope. The broad provisions of Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act remain in place. In striking down a narrow portion of the act, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the court has reinstated the classifications and community notification and registration orders imposed by judges under prior state law for certain offenders who had been sentenced before Jan. 1, 2008,</span>” said Cordray.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> “Offenders who were classified on or after Jan. 1, 2008 are unaffected by today’s ruling. Those 26,000 offenders who had been reclassified under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act will now revert to their prior classifications before the act was passed. </span>To comply with the court’s order, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">my office will work to reclassify these offenders through Ohio’s Electronic Sex Offender Registration and Notification database (eSORN) and will notify offenders of their new classification</span>. We will also continue to support local law enforcement agencies as they work to provide families with the information they need to keep their children safe.”<br /><br />Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act was enacted to bring Ohio’s offender notification laws into conformity with the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). Ohio was the first state to reach substantial implementation of the federal standards, as certified by the U.S. Department of Justice. Nothing in today’s decision affects Ohio’s status in regard to maintaining this designation. Other provisions of the act have been challenged in separate cases that remain pending before the Ohio Supreme Court.<br /><br />Media Contacts:</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br />cell: (614) 893-6018<br />Ted Hart: (614) 728-4127<br />cell: (614) 743-2286<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Important! See Ohio: </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-next-step-what-we-must-do/">Next Step – What We Must Do</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-17601506420495371992010-06-03T23:46:00.002-04:002010-06-03T23:53:20.225-04:00Attorney Margie Slagle from the Ohio Justice Policy Center on TalkShoe Radio<span style="font-size:85%;">ARC Talk Radio - Thursday, June 3, 2010 (9 p.m. EST)<br /><br />Tonight , TalkShoe Radio featured a very special show regarding the Ohio Supreme Court decision today, June 3, 2010 which ruled the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act (AWA) “invalid” for those individuals registered and convicted prior to its effect on January 1, 2008 when it became law. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Attorney Margie Slagle from the Ohio Justice Policy Center joined ARC Talk Radio to discuss the decision and what this all means for those effected by this courts decision.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />It is available to listen to and download at:<br /><a href="http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc">http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=29521&cmd=tc</a><br /><br />To read the courts decision,<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">click here</a>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-66023172789672979312010-06-03T20:41:00.005-04:002010-06-04T10:11:36.390-04:00Ohio: Next Step - What We Must Do<span style="font-size:85%;">Today the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Ohio Supreme Court invalidated</a> the Ohio Senate Bill 10 (Adam Walsh Act) reclassification of sex offenders for those who pre-dated the 2008 law.<br /><br />What's next for you if you are affected by <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-state-v-bodyke-slip-opinion-no-2010-ohio-2424/">this ruling</a>?<br /><br />Well... as of now, Constitutionalfights.org has confirmed that some of those who are to be removed from the Ohio Sex Offender Registry are still posted online. So anyone who falls into the category of those who shall now be removed from the Ohio Sex Offender Registry must call or contact the Ohio Attorney General to insist that they abide by the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Today's ruling now makes these registry postings an illegal act by the State of Ohio. If they refuse to remove these people from the registry immediately, lawsuits will follow.</span><br /><br />Contact the <a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/">Ohio Attorney General Office</a> at:<br /><a href="http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Contact.aspx">Help Center</a><br />(800) 282-0515<br />Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 7 p.m.<br /><br />Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray<br />30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor<br />Columbus, OH 43215<br /><br /><a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p4.aspx">OHLEG Support</a><br />1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)<br />OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov<br /><br />You can search to find if you are still improperly listed <a href="http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/p21_2.aspx">here</a>. If you are listed improperly, also click the "Correction" button and insist that your listing be removed immediately. But we ask that you also call the offices as well. Look folks, the Ohio AG does not want to remove your name from this registry so we must keep the pressure on them to make sure they follow the law. The moment the Ohio Supreme Court released its decision today, it immediately made the continued listing of those affected into an illegal activity by the Ohio AG office. All those Ohio citizens who were positively affected by today's ruling must contact the Ohio AG Office on Friday June 4 !<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE,</span> Friday June 4: Constitutionalfights.org called the Ohio Attorney General's office and waited on hold for over 15 minutes. After asking to speak to the person in charge of the updating of the registry database, we were eventually forwarded to an ATTORNEY, Justin Hykes ! This is humorous, as they must know they are on legal thin ice here. I asked when we can expect the database to be corrected. He said "we have no idea when it will get done". I pressed him on this at least three times and he refused to give any estimate of a time table for when we can expect these people's names and photos to be removed from their public registry. He said that they are "working on it", but we all know updating a computer database is a simple job and does not take long to edit. I then asked if they are concerned about lawsuits if they fail to remove these people from the registry promptly now that these listings are in violation of the law. His response was "no, we are not concerned and we have an immunity disclaimer built into the esorn website" If you call, perhaps you can ask for Justin Hykes and not have to wait so long on hold.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-11226671485736842012010-06-03T12:37:00.003-04:002010-06-03T12:51:13.740-04:00Ohio : State v. Bodyke Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2424<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAfdamJnRLI/AAAAAAAABHA/pE_obsht_s8/s1600/news_alert.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 114px; height: 86px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAfdamJnRLI/AAAAAAAABHA/pE_obsht_s8/s200/news_alert.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478590920706704562" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-2424.pdf">State v. Bodyke, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2424</a><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Ohio Supreme Court Rules Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional on Separation of Powers violation.</span><br /><br />R.C. Chapter 2950 — Sex offenders — R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 violate separation of powers by requiring executive branch to reclassify sex offenders already classified by court order — Only appellate courts are constitutionally permitted to review or modify court judgments — Executive branch may not reopen final judgments — Stare decisis — Doctrine not controlling in cases presenting constitutional question —<br />R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032 severed.<br /><br />Case No. 2008-2502 — Submitted November 4, 2009 — Decided June 3, 2010.<br />APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Huron County, Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387.<br /><br />1. The power to review and affirm, modify, or reverse other courts’ judgments is strictly limited to appellate courts. (Section 3(B)(2), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, applied.)<br /><br />2. R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who have already been classified by court order under former law, impermissibly instruct the executive branch to review past decisions of the judicial branch and thereby violate the separation-ofpowers doctrine.<br /><br />3. R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, which require the attorney general to reclassify sex offenders whose classifications have already been adjudicated by a court and made the subject of a final order, violate the separation-ofpowers doctrine by requiring the opening of final judgments.<br /><br />Although we discharge our duty with great respect for the role of the legislature, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), 372 U.S. 144, 159, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644, for the reasons that follow <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we are compelled to find that R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, the reclassification provisions in the AWA, are unconstitutional because they violate the separation-of-powers doctrine.</span> As a remedy, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we strike R.C. 2950.031 and 2950.032, hold that the reclassifications of sex offenders by the attorney general are invalid, and reinstate the prior judicial classifications of sex offenders.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We will have more on this very important ruling later today.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">See previous post: </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/ohio-supreme-court-says-state-may-not-reclassify-convicted-sex-offenders/">Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-73101086476933110302010-06-03T12:20:00.006-04:002010-06-03T12:55:24.512-04:00Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAfeboPZ9nI/AAAAAAAABHI/4iLFND2nTQY/s1600/news_alert.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 108px; height: 81px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAfeboPZ9nI/AAAAAAAABHI/4iLFND2nTQY/s200/news_alert.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478592037959366258" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">NEWS ALERT !</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/06/03/a-sex-offender.html?sid=101">Dispatch.com</a>: Ohio Supreme Court Says State May Not Reclassify Convicted Sex Offenders.<br /><a href="http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/ohio_supreme_court_strikes_dow.html">Cleveland.com</a>: Ohio Supreme Court strikes down part of sex offender law.<br /><a href="http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/jun/03/ohio-court-revert-old-sex-offender-classes-ar-96664/">nbc4i.com</a>: Ohio Court: Revert To Old Sex Offender Classes.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-2424.pdf">Ohio Supreme Court Ruling here (PDF</a>)<br /><br />The <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Ohio Supreme Court today struck down a provision of the state's 2007 sex-offender law, saying it is unconstitutional for the state to reclassify sexual offenders convicted under a previous statute.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The ruling means additional reporting requirements imposed on thousands of sex offenders in Ohio are rescinded, and their requirements return to what they were before the Adam Walsh Act was passed.</span><br /><br />Attorney General Richard Cordray’s office couldn’t immediately say how many people would be affected by the ruling, but Jeffrey M. Gamso, a Toledo lawyer who argued the case, estimated it was about <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">28,000.</span><br /><br />Gamso hailed the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-2424.pdf"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">5-1 ruling</span></a>, which held that it was a violation of the separation-of-powers doctrine to allow the legislature and attorney general to take action to change past decisions of trial courts.<br /><br />He argued that the courts previously had decided which sex offenders were most dangerous and required maximum scrutiny, and that adding additional requirements to others was unfair and a waste of resources.<br /><br />“This ruling will allow law enforcement to focus its efforts on people who are dangerous,” he said. “The truth is, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we’re going back to the restrictions we had before.”</span><br /><br />The state and other groups argued it was appropriate for the state to take action against the offenders to protect the public and especially children, and that the new restrictions can be applied retroactively.<br /><br />The dispute stems from changes in state law after Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act in 2006 “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.”<br /><br />The Ohio Legislature then passed a bill in June 2007 to align Megen’s Law and the state’s other sex-offender laws with the new federal law. It required the attorney general to identify each offender's classification under the new law and provide written notice of the new obligations.<br /><br />Under the old Megan's Law, sex offenders were divided into three categories: sexually oriented offenders, habitual sex offenders and sexual predators. All sex offenders had to register with their address and other details with their county sheriff, as well as register each year going forward ranging from 10 years to life, depending on their classification.<br /><br />The 2007 law set three levels of offenders. Those in Tier 1 had to register and each year for 15 years; Tier 2 offenders had to report twice a year for 25 years; and Tier 3 offenders had to register every 90 days for life.<br /><br />Today’s court ruling involved three adult sex offenders from Huron County who were reclassified as sexual predators under the 2007 law.Christian N. Bodyke, for example, was convicted in October 1999 on one count of breaking and entering and one county of sexual battery. He was classified under the old Megan’s Law as a sexually oriented offender, requiring him to report every year for 10 years, court records say.<br /><br />In November 2007, Bodyke was <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">reclassified as a Tier 3 offender, meaning he had to register every 90 days for life. </span>He lost an appeal that today’s Ohio Supreme Court ruling reverses.<br /><br />Justice Robert R. Cupp dissented, saying the reclassification doesn’t change the previous court decisions and thus is not unconstitutional. Justice Terrence O'Donnell concurred with the ruling and dissented in part.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Columbus, Ohio -- <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday threw out sections of the state's new sex offender law after ruling the provisions unconstitutionally altered previous judges' decisions.</span><br /><br />In a <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-2424.pdf">5-1 decision</a>, the high court said Thursday that classification provisions of the sex offender law passed in 2008 <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">violate the separation of powers among branches of government.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The state must now revisit cases of sex offenders who were reclassified after the Legislature passed the law and place them back in categories judges chose under more flexible guidelines in an earlier law</span>. That could subject the sex offenders to less stringent community notification and registration guidelines than the new law envisioned.<br /><br />The court left the tougher oversight scheme in place for offenders <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">convicted since the new law has been in effect.</span><br /><br />Classifications such as "sexually-oriented criminal" or "sexual predator" under the old Megan's Law were replaced with a tiered classification system under the new Adam Walsh Law. Offenders were moved into the tiers based solely on the offense they had committed, whereas Megan's Law had allowed judges to hold a hearing and use some discretion in assigning offenders a category.<br /><br />The case before the Supreme Court involved three men convicted of sex-related crimes in 2007. The three - Christian Bodyke, David Schwab and Gerald Phillips - underwent formal hearings called for under the old law and were assigned categories that required postrelease registration with the sheriff in the county where they live.<br /><br />In November 2007, they received letters from the attorney general saying the law had been changed and, as of Jan. 1, 2008, they would considered Tier III offenders. The change meant they were subject to more stringent registration and community-notification requirements.<br /><br />Writing for the majority, Justice Maureen O'Connor said the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">earlier judges' decisions in the three cases were binding. Only courts can change the decisions of courts.</span><br /><br />"It is well settled that a legislature cannot enact laws that revisit a final judgment," she wrote. "We have held for over a century that '<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Legislature cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered."'</span><br /><br />Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Judith Ann Lanzinger, Paul Pfeifer and Terrence O'Donnell agreed with the majority on the separation-of-powers issue. Chief Justice Eric Brown, appointed to replace the late Thomas Moyer, did not participate in the case.<br /><br />In his dissent, Justice Robert Cupp said lawmakers didn't interfere with court decisions in the Adam Walsh Act, but simply ordered the attorney general to transfer offenders from one classification to another based on a set of fixed criteria.<br /><br />"Rather than burden the courts with sifting the hundreds or thousands of sex offenders to which new and different requirements apply, the General Assembly assigned that administrative task to an executive officer, the attorney general," Cupp wrote.<br /><br />He said the task "neither requires nor permits the attorney general to open, overturn, or otherwise disturb the final judgments of conviction and sentence of any offender."<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-80838976239207189152010-06-02T23:41:00.002-04:002010-06-02T23:54:58.398-04:00DOJ Challenges Sex Offender's Effort to Renounce Citizenship<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAcndOuWf_I/AAAAAAAABGw/ZUW1TUP4k48/s1600/manwithoutcountry.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 119px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAcndOuWf_I/AAAAAAAABGw/ZUW1TUP4k48/s200/manwithoutcountry.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478390854841696242" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/04/doj-challenges-sex-offenders-effort-to-renounce-citizenship.html">legaltimes.typepad.com</a>: Department of Justice Challenges Sex Offender's Effort to Renounce Citizenship.<br /><br />James Kaufman has been trying for six years to renounce his citizenship, pressing Justice Department officials and other government agencies to let him cut his ties to the United States.<br /><br />Kaufman, a 36-year registered sex offender who is locked up in state prison in Wisconsin, says in court papers in Washington that he is entitled to renounce his citizenship inside the United States during a state of war. Typically, a person can only renounce citizenship <a href="http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html">outside of the United States.</a><br /><br />Ever since Kaufman filed<a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/kaufman_suit.pdf"> a pro se suit (.pdf) </a>in August 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department has fought Kaufman’s effort to shed his citizenship while still in the country. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">And now that fight has gone to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where DOJ is challenging a ruling that favored Kaufman.</span><br /><br />DOJ lawyers make one main point: that the United States is not in a “state of war,” as it is used in the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952), and therefore Kaufman fails to meet the requirements of the federal law.<br /><br />Earlier this year, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Judge Richard Roberts of Washington federal court rejected the government’s argument</span>, saying the Justice Department’s position in the case is “contrary to both law and common sense.” He granted summary judgment in favor of Kaufman. <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/roberts_opinion.pdf">Click here for the ruling</a>.<br /><br />The “precise question here is whether the United States was in a state of war in 2004 or 2008 when Kaufman made his renunciation requests,” Roberts wrote. “There can be no genuine debate about that.”<br /><br />The appeal, filed April 21, marks the second time that Kaufman’s suit—which names Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, among other defendants—has reached the D.C. Circuit.<br /><br />The appeals court ruled in Kaufman’s favor in late 2008—after his suit was dismissed—remanding the case back to the trial court for further review. (In the D.C. Circuit, Kaufman got help from the Georgetown University Law Center, which filed an amicus brief on Kaufman’s behalf. A Georgetown 3L, Brendan Quigley, who now clerks for a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, argued for Kaufman.)<br /><br />The appeals court noted in <a href="http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/kaufman_opinion.pdf">the opinion (.pdf)</a> that Kaufman had written numerous letters, starting in 2004, to government officials requesting that he be allowed to renounce his citizenship. At least<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> several letters were ignored.</span> In other letters, Kaufman was directed by one government agency to another.<br /><br />“[W]e do not understand the government to suggest that a congressionally created right can be nullified by government inaction,” Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the panel opinion, joined by Judges A. Raymond Randolph and Harry Edwards. (Randolph and Edwards are both now senior judges.)<br /><br />On remand, DOJ attorneys continued the fight to get the suit dismissed. The government attorneys in the case say in court papers that the term “state of war” in the statute is ambiguous and that the Department of Homeland Security, which has jurisdiction, was right to reject Kaufman’s request to renounce his citizenship.<br /><br />A trial attorney in the Office of Immigration Litigation, Derek Julius, said the statute at issue uses another term in a different subsection—“engaged in hostilities”—to describe armed conflict short of a Congressionally declared war. Julius urged Roberts, the presiding trial judge, to allow DHS to interpret the statute in order to administer it.<br /><br />DOJ attorneys also point to a ruling in October 2008 in federal district court in West Virginia where a judge rejected a prisoner’s request to renounce his citizenship.<br /><br />Senior Judge James Turk said in a four-page ruling that the wartime exception is “not currently applicable.” Turk noted that government officials told Duncan that the country is not at war. Turk dismissed the complaint about two weeks after it was filed. Duncan did not appeal.<br /><br />Roberts rejected the government’s argument that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the term “state of war” is ambiguous</span>. The government’s “conclusion would require that every term in every statute be specially defined or else be deemed ambiguous,” Roberts wrote in the opinion. “That is not the law.”<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Kaufman said in court papers that he has no intention to remain in the United States.</span> Kaufman was imprisoned in 1998 for sex crimes and released in 2008. But he was returned to prison after a parole violation last April, according to a Wisconsin prison official. Kaufman is eligible for parole in July 2011.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Questions:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> 1.) What interest does the federal government have in forcing a convicted sex offender to remain in the country as a citizen? Surely, sex offender laws across this nation are doing all they can to banish them from society.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2.) If he prevails in this challenge, to what country can be move? Which nations allow sex offenders to immigrate? The U.S. denies any sex offender from immigrating into USA.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-42206571164108066662010-06-02T01:13:00.007-04:002010-06-02T01:45:04.156-04:00Ohio Supreme Court SORNA Update: June 2010<span style="font-size:85%;">Update to <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/when-will-ohio-supreme-court-rule-on-awa/">Nov. 2009 post</a>, and <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/notice-ohio-supreme-court-chief-justice-died/">April 2010 update</a> regarding <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/">Ohio Supreme Court four consolidated cases (Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, Ohio Senate Bill 10)</a>:<br /><br /><a style="" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAXsvuJkGwI/AAAAAAAABGo/elpNMn4cQ-s/s1600/formal_lowres.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 110px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAXsvuJkGwI/AAAAAAAABGo/elpNMn4cQ-s/s200/formal_lowres.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5478044826352229122" border="0" /></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Call to Action:</span><br /><br />Constitutionalfights.org spoke to the Ohio Supreme Court Clerk of Courts again today to ask when decisions will be released for the four pending challenges which were<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/"> heard by the Court on Nov. 4, 2009</a>. Decisions are normally published within six months of the oral arguments, but we are now 7 months out and still waiting.<br /><br />We were told that "no one knows" when these decisions will be released and that "there is no time limit" for releasing the decisions. Further, we were told that it is not known if the rulings have been made yet, or if arguments might be re-heard following the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/notice-ohio-supreme-court-chief-justice-died/">death of the Chief Justice in April 2010</a>.<br /><br />All readers who have an interest in the outcome of these crucial cases before the Ohio Supreme Court are asked to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">call the Ohio Supreme Court Clerk of Courts to inquire when these rulings will be made.</span> The hope is that with increasing pressure on the Court to issue their decisions, we may see movement sooner than political elections might allow. It would be quite unfortunate and unethical if they are awaiting the November Elections before they release these rulings.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Call (or write) the Court from any state - not just Ohio</span> - to demonstrate to them that there are tens of thousands of citizens across the nation whose lives and families are adversely affected by their delays. They will not ask where you are calling from. But if hundreds of calls come to the Clerk's office, it is likely that the Justices will hear about it.<br /></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Office of the Clerk<br />Supreme Court of Ohio<br />65 South Front Street, 8<sup>th</sup> Floor<br />Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><b>Phone:</b> 614.387.9530<br /><strong>Fax:</strong></span> <span style="font-size:85%;"> 614.387.9539<br /><b>E-mail:</b> <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Clerk/contact/default.asp">Office of the Clerk</a></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;">Refer to: Senate Bill 10 Sex Offender Law challenges<br />Or you can use case names and numbers:<br /><br />08-0991/ 08-0992 - Roman Chojnacki v. Ohio Atty. General<br />08-1624 Darian J. Smith, Alleged Delinquent Child<br />08-2502 State of Ohio v. Christian N. Bodyke, David A. Schwab [and] Gerald E. Phillips<br />09-0189 In re: Adrian R., Delinquent Child – Licking County</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-44510176943937182062010-06-01T17:07:00.005-04:002010-06-02T00:37:09.282-04:00Supreme Court: No Backdating Sex Offender Registry<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/01/Court-No-backdating-sex-offender-registry/UPI-64251275425351/">UPI.com</a>: Court: No backdating sex offender registry.<br /><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0601/Registry-law-doesn-t-apply-to-all-sex-offenders-Supreme-Court-rules">CSmonitor.com</a>: Registry law doesn't apply to all sex offenders, Supreme Court rules.<br /><a href="http://www.sexcrimes.typepad.com/">sexcrimes.typepad.com</a>: Carr v. United States - Initial Thoughts<br /><br /><br />Washington, DC, June 1 (UPI) -- <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday a sex offender moving to another state didn't have to update his registration if he moved before a law took effect.</span><br /><br />The 2006 Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act requires sex offenders to register, and makes it a crime for any person required to register to fail to update his registration when moving to another state.<br /><br />Thomas Carr pleaded guilty in Alabama to first-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 15 years, with all but two years suspended. Receiving credit for time previously served, Carr was released on probation July 3, 2004, and registered as a sex offender as required by Alabama law.<br /><br />In late 2004 or early 2005, prior to SORNA's enactment, Carr relocated from Alabama to Indiana, court records say. He did not comply with Indiana's sex-offender registration requirements. In July 2007, Carr became involved in a fight in Fort Wayne, Ind., drawing the attention of police, and federal prosecutors charged Carr in Indiana with failing to register after moving in violation of the federal law.<br /><br />A federal appeals court in Chicago affirmed his conviction, but the Supreme Court reversed today.<br /><br />Writing for the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">charging Carr with a SORNA violation for activity occurring before the law came into effect violated the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, which bans after the fact prosecutions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">From our understanding of this ruling, the US Supreme Court did not invalidate this SORNA provision on Ex Post Facto grounds, but rather the majority justices found that the statute, as written by Congress, did not authorize retroactive enforcement in its construction. They therefore left the Ex Post Facto (retro-active) challenge to be decided at another time. </span><br /><br />She said the key was that an offender had to become subject to SORNA in the first place before going to another state and failing to register.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Corey Rayburn Yung at <a href="http://www.sexcrimes.typepad.com/">sexcrimes.typepad.com </a>writes:<br /><br />"</span> <span style="font-size:85%;">In a bit of a surprise, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1301.pdf">Carr won on a 6-3 vote</a>. Although, as I thought, the likely way Carr would be victorious would be on the statutory interpretation issue and not the Ex Post Facto Clause claim. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The outcome will have an effect on very few prosecutions and Congress can "correct" the outcome whenever it wants.</span> So, it isn't much of a decision against SORNA or the AWA in any meaningful way.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://howappealing.law.com/060110.html#038186"> There is</a> <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-14/">plenty of</a> <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/06/some-intriguing-who-and-how-dynamics-in-the-carr-ruling-reversing-sex-offenders-sorna-conviction.html">coverage around</a> <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/06/sex-offender-prevails-with-challenge-to-sorna-conviction-in-carr.html">the legal</a> <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2010/06/opinion-limiting-federal-sex-offender-statute-to-those-travelling-in-interstate-commerce-after-effec.html">blogosphere</a> and I should have more later."</span><div class="entry-content"><div class="entry-body"><p style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:85%;">While we greatly respect Yung's credentials and are completely unqualified to challenge his professional opinions..... I would like to posit a slightly different stance on the value of this SCOTUS decision. We are not legal professionals in any way, but it seems that this decision could be more meaningful than Yung suggests. It does appear that the ruling will affect very few sex offenders, whose travel and registration brought federal charges. <span style="font-weight: bold;">But it does further erode SORNA, as written.</span></span></p><p style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style=";font-size:85%;" >To be clear, as far as we can decipher, <span style="font-weight: bold;">this ruling affects only cases where ex offenders traveled to other states and were prosecuted for their failure to register in the new states.</span> The legislative text to which the Justices refer is in relation to Interstate Travel, and not related to other parts of SORNA.</span></p><p style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style=";font-size:85%;" >In many states - and in Ohio foremost - SORNA as applied through Ohio Senate Bill 10 has been barraged with lawsuits in every county of the state. <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/">Four consolidated cases have been argued before the Ohio Supreme Court</a> with another couple cases being heard since then. In lower courts, the only means by which the Ohio law has been permitted to stand is by judges ruling that SORNA is a civil remedy and not punitive in nature. Therefore,<span style="font-weight: bold;"> its retroactive implementation has never been </span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >properly </span><span style=";font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">addressed by the courts. </span><br /></span></p><p style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style=";font-size:85%;" > In today's ruling, SCOTUS ruled that the Interstate Travel portion (at least) of SORNA was not written to be retroactive. Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that other portions of SORNA may similarly be ruled to be written to be non- retroactive? Or that SORNA could be re-written to exclude its retroactivity requirements?<br /></span></p><p><span style=";font-size:85%;" ><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We know that the US Department of Justice recently came out with new</span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam-walsh-act-guidelines/"> revised guidelines for SORNA</a> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-style: italic;">implementation directed to states which are reluctant to implement SORNA (Adam Walsh Act). One of the main points of contention is the retro-activity requirement.</span> The</span> <a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam-walsh-act-guidelines/">Revised Guidelines</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> erase the retroactive requirement for states, allowing them a way our of this constitutional obstacle. Having seen today's ruling, along with the revised guidelines, it seems that Carr vs. US could be more meaningful that Yung suggests.</span><br /></span></p> </div> </div><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">See previous two postings for more information on this ruling.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-13505716143780534672010-06-01T13:51:00.003-04:002010-06-01T14:04:59.220-04:00SCOTUS: Carr v. United States Decision Against SORNA<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/todays-orders-and-opinions-14/">scotusblog.com</a>: Carr v. United States (08-1301)<br /><a href="http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/06/happy_scotustim.php">blogs.villagevoice.com</a>: A Users Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Handed Down Today.<br /><a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/06/some-intriguing-who-and-how-dynamics-in-the-carr-ruling-reversing-sex-offenders-sorna-conviction.html">Sentencing Law & Policy:</a> Some intriguing who and how dynamics in the Carr ruling reversing sex offender's SORNA conviction.<br /><a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/06/sex-offender-prevails-with-challenge-to-sorna-conviction-in-carr.html">Sentencing Law & Policy</a>: Sex offender prevails with challenge to SORNA conviction in Carr.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Carr_v._United_States">Carr v. United States</a> (08-1301), the Court, on a 6-3 vote, reverses and remands in an <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1301.pdf">opinion </a>by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Scalia concurs in part and in the judgment, but joins most of Justice Sotomayor’s <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1301.pdf">opinion</a>. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.<br /><br /> * Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2007 law that requires sex offenders to register, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------<br />First,it is interesting and notable that the </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >two former prosecutors on SCOTUS</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, Justices Sotomayor and Alito, wrote the majority and dissenting opinions. It is likewise interesting and notable that the two female Justices also split in this case. I cannot help but suspect that the sex offender context may have prompted Justice Ginsburg to be less sympathetic than usual to the appealing defendant here.<br /><br />Both the majority and dissent note lots of circuit splits and lots of potential constitutional concerns with aspects of SORNA that are not directly addressed in the Carr opinion. I think this means </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >we can and should expect a docket filled with at least a SORNA case or two in many future SCOTUS Terms.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/transcripts-of-scotus-ex-post-facto-oral-arguments/">Case: 08-1301</a>, <a href="http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Carr_v._United_States">Carr v. United States</a><br />Decision: Reversal<br />Opinion By: Sotamayor.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who It Matters To: </span> Sex Offenders, Potential Sex Offenders, Especially Sex Offenders Who Sex Offended Before February 2007.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Law Geeks Will Geek Out Over: </span>The ex post facto clause, due process challenges.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ruling:</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "The Court rules that a 2007 law (SORNA) that requires sex offenders to register does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What it means:</span> Carr involved a guy who didn't register for SORNA, or the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, after he moved from Alabama to Indiana. This guy, Thomas Carr, had already registered as a sex offender in Alabama in 2004, but when he moved to Indiana, failed to register as one there, which law enforcement officials found out when he was busted for an unrelated crime in July 2007. Earlier that year, in February 2007, the Attorney General ruled that SORNA applied to all sex offenders, even those who were convicted before SORNA went into effect. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Carr argued a defense of the constitution's ex post facto clause, wherin, he's protected because you can't be retroactively punished by new laws. And the court ruled in his favor!</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">Who Wins:</span><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>Those whose crimes aren't actually crimes until after they've committed them. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-4570741876646393742010-06-01T13:22:00.003-04:002010-06-01T15:12:14.118-04:00US Supreme Court: Sex Offender Law Can't Be Applied Retroactively<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/01/27708.htm">courthousenews.com</a>: US Supreme Court: Sex Offender Law Can't Be Applied Retroactively.<br /><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1301.ZS.html">Cornell University Law School</a>: CARR v. UNITED STATES ( No. 08-1301 ).<br /><br />The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to retroactively apply a 2006 law that makes it a crime for sex offenders to cross state lines and knowingly fail to register or update a registration.<br /><br /> After being convicted of first-degree sexual abuse in 2004, Thomas Carr was released on probation and moved from Alabama to Indiana without registering as a sex offender in Indiana. Congress passed the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006. Among its provisions, the law bars sex offenders from moving across state lines without registering or updating their registrations.<br /><br /> Carr was charged with violating SORNA in 2007, and he entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal. He claimed the indictment against him should be dismissed,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> because he traveled to Indiana before the sex offender registration law went into effect.<br /><br /></span> A federal judge in Indiana refused to dismiss the indictment and sentenced Carr to 30 months in prison.<br /> The 7th Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing, saying SORNA "does not require that the defendant's travel postdate the Act." At oral argument, Carr insisted that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the provision criminalizing the failure to register after moving across state lines can only apply after SORNA took effect.<br /><br /></span> The government argued that the provision is triggered by a sex-offense conviction, followed by interstate travel and a failure to register. In the government's view, only the failure to register had to occur after SORNA took effect.<br /><br /> "Carr's interpretation better accords with the statutory text," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the 6-3 majority, reversing the 7th Circuit's ruling. She said the law specifically states that the provision only applies when a person "is required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act."<br /> Sotomayor rejected the government's claim that this language was merely a "shorthand way" of identifying those with sex-offense convictions.<br /><br /> She pointed out that, as the government would have it, Congress used 12 words and two implied cross-references to establish that sex offenders were the law's targeted group. "Such contortions can scarcely be called 'shorthand,'" Sotomayor wrote.<br /><br /> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Once a person becomes subject to SORNA's registration requirements, which can occur only after the statute's effective date, that person can be convicted under [the travel provision] if he thereafter travels and then fails to register."<br /><br /></span> Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying the majority "misinterprets and hobbles" the travel provision, designed "to punish and deter interstate movement that seriously undermines the enforcement of sex-offender-registration laws." He said the majority's conclusion "makes no sense," as it would allow the conviction of a sex offender who moved and failed to register after SORNA's enactment, but not someone like Carr, who moved before the law took effect.<br /><br /> "Is there any reason why Congress might have wanted to treat the second case any differently from the first?" he asked. "In both cases, a sex offender's interstate movement frustrates enforcement of SORNA's registration requirements." Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Alito in dissent. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-84336407416094081202010-06-01T00:00:00.003-04:002010-06-01T00:09:04.577-04:00CA: Public Park Cruisers Registered as Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.queerty.com/the-ridiculous-attempt-by-palm-springs-police-to-get-public-park-cruisers-registered-as-sex-offenders-20100528/">queerty.com</a>: The Ridiculous Attempt By Palm Springs Police to Get Public Park Cruisers Registered as Sex Offenders.<br /><a href="http://www.mydesert.com/article/20100528/NEWS01/5280307/Report-Police-sought-harsh-penalties-off-sting">mydesert.com</a>: Report: Police sought harsh penalties off sting<br /><br />Palm Springs police, preparing to conduct a gay sex sting last summer, pushed the district attorney's office to agree in advance to pursue more severe penalties than in prior stings, court documents show.<br /><br />All 24 men arrested in the 2009 Warm Sands neighborhood sting, which police say stemmed from complaints of sex in public, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">now face charges that would require them to register for life as sex offenders.</span><br /><br />Some in the community — including a former Riverside County deputy D.A. familiar with the case — believe those charges are too heavy-handed.<br /><br />Prior to the Warm Sands sting, Palm Springs police made it clear to the Riverside County D.A.'s Office they were dissatisfied with the “disturbing the peace” pleas that came from previous stings, according to sworn testimony from Palm Springs police Sgt. Bryan Anderson, who helped supervise the Warm Sands sting.<br />Jeandron said all 24 men, if convicted on the charges, would register on a sex offender list available only to authorities, not the public. They wouldn't appear in databases such as the Megan's Law Web site, he said.<br /><br />Lawyers defending several of the men allege Palm Springs police singled out gay man in enforcing the city's laws against public sex, while ignoring the same behavior by straight people.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-15463420040038668742010-05-31T23:51:00.002-04:002010-05-31T23:56:56.381-04:00TX: Sex Offender Label Requires Court Hearing<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7016583.html">chron.com(TX)</a>: Sex offender label requires hearing, court rules.<br /><br />Austin, TX —<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Texas has been unconstitutionally designating some prison inmates as sexual criminals without giving them an appropriate hearing, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday.</span><br /><br />The ruling could affect as many as <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">6,900 prison inmates who have never been convicted of a sex offense</span> although they may be sexual predators.<br /><br />The lawsuit was brought by Raul Meza, who was convicted in the 1982 murder of a 9-year old girl. He was released from prison in 1993 under the state’s mandatory supervision law and then re-incarcerated until 2002.<br /><br />At that time the Board of Pardon’s and Paroles listed Meza as a sex offender, a condition that was rescinded in 2005. Meza was not allowed to see the evidence against him or have a hearing before the board. "Meza is no longer required to register as a sex offender," the court said.<br /><br />The 5th Circuit noted that in previous cases it has <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">ruled that inmates cannot be designated as a sex offender without a due process hearing.</span><br /><br />The 5th Circuit said the state has an interest in rehabilitating sex offenders before they re-enter society, but it said inmates also have a legitimate interest in making certain the record against them is free of errors. But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the state at present does not allow inmates to review the record that is used to designate them as sex offenders</span> or to put additional provisions on their parole.<br /><br />"We conclude that the current procedure provided to parolees who have never been convicted of a sex offense and who face possible sex offender registration and therapy is constitutionally insufficient," the court said.<br /><br />"In compiling 6,900 parolee packets, human error will inevitably occur and parolees may be falsely accused of sexually deviant behavior," the court said.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "By simply granting the parolees the right to review his packet, such human errors could be avoided."</span><br /><br />Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said the agency plans to review the ruling next week with the Texas Attorney General’s Office to see what step to take next.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-29636718262150092892010-05-28T17:13:00.003-04:002010-05-28T17:26:36.478-04:00Government Confiscates 19 Acres of Land from Man Convicted of Child Porn<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAAz_pU6TDI/AAAAAAAABGg/g5-Bn-dyasE/s1600/handsoffhome.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 193px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/TAAz_pU6TDI/AAAAAAAABGg/g5-Bn-dyasE/s200/handsoffhome.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5476434315400858674" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/05/eighth-circuit-affirms-big-real-property-forfeiture-for-child-porn-offense.html">Sentencing Law & Policy</a>: Eighth Circuit affirms big real property forfeiture for child porn offense.<br /><br />I wonder if any of the usual suspects who get riled up about property rights will have any complaints about the intriguing forfeiture ruling from the Eighth Circuit today in US v. Hull, No. 08-4015 (8th Cir. May 26, 2010) (<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/05/084015P.pdf">available here</a>). Here is how the decision in Hull starts:<br /><br /> Larry Richard Hull was convicted of two counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1).<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> The district court ordered forfeiture of Hull’s real property, which consisted of approximately nineteen acres in rural Iowa</span>, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253(a)(3). Hull appeals the forfeiture order, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support forfeiture of the property under § 2253(a)(3). He also asserts that the district court erred by failing to make adequate findings of fact to determine whether <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">forfeiture was a grossly disproportionate penalty</span> in violation of the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Anyone concerned with U.S. property rights and the government's growing power to confiscate property from citizens should be outraged by this ruling.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-38012327146340224722010-05-28T11:55:00.003-04:002010-05-28T12:11:52.959-04:00States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127220896">NPR.org</a>: States Struggle To Control Sex Offender Costs.<br /><br />Nationwide, more than 700,000 convicted sex offenders have registered their whereabouts with local police <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(..and growing each day)</span>. Every state has a sex offender registry of some kind.<br /><br />But as many states face persistent budget shortfalls, it's become a real question<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> how well law enforcement can keep track of such a large caseload.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Sometimes federal mandates and state laws get passed without a real sense of what the lingering costs are," </span>says Suzanne Brown-McBride, deputy director of the Council of State Governments Justice Center.<br /><br />Earlier this month, the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam-walsh-act-guidelines/">Justice Department proposed significant changes to the registration requirements states must meet under the Adam Walsh Act</a>, a 2006 law that was meant to ensure that offender registries across the country adhere to similar standards. Only three states — Ohio, Delaware and Florida — are in compliance. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Many of the rest say it imposes costs that are too high for them to bear.</span><br /><br />Even some advocates for harsher penalties for sex crimes worry that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">states will not devote the resources needed to keep track of so many offenders, often for life.</span><br /><br />"It's the worst it's ever been because of the economic crisis," says Ernie Allen, president and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which estimates 100,000 sex offenders are not even currently registered with states. "Our argument lies not in throwing up your hands and saying we can't do this. The answer lies in triage — <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">deciding who represents the greatest risk."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Incarceration's High Cost</span><br /><br />The greatest expense, of course, is incarceration. Sex criminals, along with drug offenders, are the fastest-growing part of prison populations, Allen says. Last week, the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court/">Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not overstepped its authority in the Adam Walsh Act by allowing federal prisons to hold "sexually dangerous" inmates after their sentences are completed.</a><br /><br />The California legislature is currently considering a bill, known as <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/sex-offenders-more-dangerous-when-theyre-homeless/">Chelsea's Law</a>, which would allow for life sentences for more categories of sex offenders and lifetime parole for others. The bill has the backing of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and could pass the State Assembly as early as next week.<br /><br />But state officials have warned that the cost of implementing Chelsea's Law will be high as the lengthier sentences play out. An analysis by the state corrections department found the law would cost $1 million in 2015 but $54 million by 2030. The California Legislative Analyst's Office says costs will run much higher, "at least a few tens of millions of dollars annually within the next decade" and hundreds of millions annually in decades to come.<br /><br />California's budget shortfall currently stands at $19 billion and the corrections budget is already under deep stress. The state is releasing 6,500 prisoners early this year in part to save money. California is under court order to release 40,000 prisoners over the next two years, and perhaps many more over three years, because of overcrowding.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">An Expanding List</span><br /><br />At the same time, states have come under some criticism for requiring registration and community notification for an <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">ever-expanding list of offenses</span> — including public urination, "<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sexting</span>" (minors sending nude pictures to each other via cell phones) and "<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Romeo and Juliet</span>" cases involving older teens who had consensual sex with younger ones.<br /><br />The argument from some advocacy groups holds that there are twin dangers associated with registration lists that contain thousands of petty criminals: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The registry lists are too long to track effectively and can allow the worst offenders to slip through the cracks.</span><br /><br />But purging the lists of minor offenders would not necessarily make them more manageable, says Roxanne Lieb, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "Sometimes there's discussion about sexting and Romeo and Juliet, but you're talking about tiny numbers," she says. "It would still be a huge number to monitor. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It's not going to solve the problem of too many people to watch and keep track of in any way."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Can States Bear The Cost?</span><br /><br />Still, even proponents of harsher penalties increasingly say <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">there's value in laws that recognize some sex offenders require more oversight than others.</span> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Yet the trend in most states has been to differentiate less between various categories of offenders </span>— moving away from "tiered" systems that imposed different notification requirements depending on the severity of the crime.<br /><br />And it's the very fact that the Adam Walsh Act puts offenders into three different tiers that has contributed to states' fear about the cost, suggests Alisa Klein, a public policy consultant with the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The practical effect of the federal law (AWA) would be to force states to put more offenders into the highest-risk category</span> — leading to much greater administrative and enforcement costs.<br /><br />If states do not comply by July 26 — itself an extension of last year's deadline – they stand to lose 10 percent of their funding under a congressional grant program for law enforcement. But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">with only a couple of months left and few states on board, it appears that most are deciding the cost of compliance will be higher than the penalty.</span><br /><br />The question now is what sort of calculations states will make moving forward. Congress and state legislatures may have made bigger promises in protecting against sex offenders than they're willing to pay for, or that agencies may be able to deliver.<br /><br />"What happens is the legislature has basically made a commitment to the citizens regarding how sex offenders will be managed and kept track of," says Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. "To the extent they're not able to fulfill those expectations, then<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> it becomes grounds for disappointment and lawsuits and other financial consequences." </span><br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127235597"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S__q9VwaPMI/AAAAAAAABGY/K1noxHw7dng/s200/offenderspercentages.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5476354011438922946" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Map: Sex Offenders By State</span><br /></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Click on map to see how many sex offenders have been registered in each state, and which states have the highest rates of registered sex offenders per capita. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-2699601338450264552010-05-27T17:03:00.002-04:002010-05-27T17:08:09.725-04:00OH: Abduction and Sex Assault was a Hoax<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.whiotv.com/news/23699947/detail.html">whiotv.com</a>: College Student Recants Abduction Report.<br /><br />Lebanon, Ohio -- Police in Lebanon said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the abduction and sex assault of a 21-year-old college student has been ruled a hoax</span>. Investigators said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Kristen Lamb admitted Thursday during an interview that the alleged abduction and sexual assault was a hoax</span>. They said they attribute Lamb's actions over her family's attention to her brother's recent wedding.<br /><br />Police said the University of Cincinnati nursing student admitted that she went to the location in a wooded area where she sat for more than 15 hours. She told police that she used zip ties from her father's toolbox to bound her wrists. Lamb also told police that she used a pillow case from her own room to cover her head. Police said Lamb took officers to the wooded area north of her home, where they found the pillow case and one zip tie.<br /><br />According to police, Lamb said she had no other help in the alleged abduction and sexual assault. Police are now talking with prosecutors about possible criminal charges against Lamb.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This woman must be charged severely as anyone should be after making a false accusation of sex abuse. Her family should be ashamed of her for her inexcusable actions.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-42735951703780681462010-05-27T16:47:00.002-04:002010-05-27T16:51:20.447-04:00TN: More Sex Offender Compliance Checks Under Way<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/7717934/article-Sex-offender-compliance-checks-under-way?instance=latest_articles">clevelandbanner.com</a>(TN): Sex Offender Compliance Checks Under Way.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">See </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/u-s-marshals-checking-on-sex-offenders-in-ohio-and-iowa/">previous posts</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> for important information about this topic.</span><br /><br />The Bradley County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Marshal’s Service is in the process of contacting sex offenders to verify the information they provided for the state’s sex offender registry is accurate and up-to-date.<br /><br />Five teams of two people each consisting of personnel from the BCSO and U.S. Marshal’s Service started Tuesday verifying offenders live at the address where they are registered and are abiding by any applicable restrictions regarding minor children living in the same home.<br /><br />The Tennessee Sex Offender Act requires offenders report changes in residence, employment, or enrollment in an educational facility within 48 hours. Offenders on registries in other states are required to register in Tennessee within 48 hours after they establish residence.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-25236532361653866442010-05-27T16:35:00.002-04:002010-05-27T16:43:39.296-04:00Two NH Sex Offender Bills Killed<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.corrections.com/news/article/24567-two-nh-sex-offender-bills-killed-">corrections.com</a>: Two NH sex offender bills killed.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/">New Hampshire State Senate</a> last week tabled and thus killed HB 1628, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">a bill to encourage police to actively notify the neighbors whenever a sex offender is released into their midst</span>. A dozen opponents, including several sex offenders, had packed the senate public hearing on the legislation.<br /><br />In response, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-1 to kill the bill politely by sending it to interim study in an election year. A co-sponsor of the bill, <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate09.asp">Sen. Sheila Roberge (R-Bedford)</a>, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">voted to effectively defeat her own legislation after hearing the evidence against it.</span><br /><br />There was no debate on the later Senate floor motion to table. Whatever infighting led to that outcome happened behind closed doors. After the vote, one senator said people were worried about the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">consequences to the families of sex offenders if neighbors got into the habit of welcoming every sex offender harshly.</span><br /><br />I certainly expected an emotional floor fight in the senate chambers. <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/members/senate19.asp">Sen. Robert Letourneau (R-Derry)</a> missed the committee vote, but he co-sponsored the bill and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">would have voted for it</span>. Close split decisions are rare in senate committees and often lead to donnybrooks on the senate floor. All 24 senators received an email from me the night before the final vote with a copy of an op ed I had just published in the Laconia Citizen. The full text appears at the bottom of this update.<br /><br />I’m sorry to say the Senate killed HB 1484 the same way,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> a bill to bar towns from imposing residency restrictions against sex offenders</span>. I heard conflicting reasons from senators and sources close to the governor for the surprising vote to table this fine legislation. It had sailed through the House and left Senate Judiciary Committee with a 5-0 ought-to-pass endorsement. The sponsors tentatively <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">plan to resubmit the bill for next year. <span style="font-style: italic;">(</span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers.asp">contact your senators</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> !)</span></span><br /><br />Losing this favorable legislation was palatable in an election year. Only five towns have adopted these residency restrictions, and<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> several have chosen not to enforce them in light of a district court decision</span> last August. It shot down the Dover residency restriction against sex offenders <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">as a violation of fundamental property rights. </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-30780031565048628612010-05-27T16:17:00.003-04:002010-05-27T16:31:44.784-04:00Shh...Georgia's Sex Offender Law Changed Last Week<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/05/27/ssh-georgias-sex-offender-law-changed-last-week/">Atlanta.creativeloafing.com</a>: Shh! Georgia’s sex offender law changed last week.<br /><br />It’s gotten surprisingly little attention, but </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >much of Georgia’s harsh and arguably unconstitutional sex offender law was effectively tossed out last Friday.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />That’s when Gov. Sonny Perdue signed <a href="http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/freshloaf/2010/03/18/sex-offender-law-on-its-way-to-near-total-rewrite/">House Bill 571, the near-total rewrite of the 2006 state law </a>authored by Christian Coalition head-turned-politician, Rep. Jerry Keen, R-St. Simon’s. HB 571, in turn, was introduced and shepherded through the Legislature by new House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge.<br /><br />So, as of Friday, what’s changed ? Well…<br /><br />* Sex offenders <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">can’t be forced from their homes or apartments if a park or daycare opens nearby</span>.<br /><br />* <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Judges now have discretion to exempt some registered sex offenders from restrictions on where they’re allowed to work.</span><br /><br />* Sex offenders are<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> no longer be prohibited from taking part in such church activities as choir and Bible study</span>.<br /><br />* Homeless sex offenders no longer risk going to prison for failing to have a fixed address.<br /><br />* Folks won’t be added to the sex-offender registry for a misdemeanor.<br /><br />The new law also — and this is a biggie — allows judges to remove convicted sex offenders from the state registry after they’ve completed their sentence.<br /><br />Perhaps just as importantly, the new law <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">provides for sex offenders to be evaluated in terms of their relative risk to the public.</span> For the past few years, the only distinction the law made was in the case of “sexual predators” — serial rapists and child molesters. Everyone else was dumped into the same basket, regardless of whether they’d been convicted of stalking or having sex with an underage girlfriend.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Law-enforcement officials, from the GBI to local sheriffs, have long asked legislators to create a mechanism to differentiate</span> between dangerous pervs and folks like <a href="http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A98753">Wendy Whitaker, our cover subject from 2006</a>, who has remained on the state registry despite the fact that she was convicted under a law that was subsequently overturned.<br /><br />Which brings us to the new law’s shortcomings. For one, it <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">doesn’t address the issue of school bus stops</span>. You’ll recall that, under Keen’s law, sex offenders were prohibited from living near a “designated school bus stop.” That provision was enjoined by a federal judge, however, after it was realized that school systems frequently change bus routes and that there’s no official designation process for bus stops. At this point, I can’t imagine the state would continue to fight to salvage a provision that’s never been enforced.<br /><br />More troublesome is the fact that the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">new law applies only to sex offenders convicted since July 2008,</span> meaning it still won’t help folks like Whitaker. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Those and other improvements to the law will have to be shaped by future lawsuits.</span><br /><br />We say, bring ‘em on !<br /><br /><a href="http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/hb571.htm">View Georgia General Assembly HB 571 here</a>.<br />05/20/10 - House Date Signed by Governor<br /><br />Summary:<br />A BILL to be entitled an Act to change and enact provisions of law relating to classification of sexual offenders, sexual offender registration, and restrictions on sexual offenders' residences, workplaces, and activities; to amend Code Section 5-6-35 of the O.C.G.A., relating to appeals requiring an application for appeal, so as to make such Code section applicable to appeals reviewing a decision of the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board; to amend Article 1 of Chapter 10 of Title 17 of the O.C.G.A., relating to procedures for sentencing in criminal cases, so as to provide that, classification shall be by the sentencing court rather than the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board; to amend Article 2 of Chapter 1 of Title 42 of the O.C.G.A., relating to classification and registration of sexual offenders and regulation of the conduct of such offenders, so as to revise provisions relating to registration; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Readers in states other than Georgia need to pay attention to this report. Only when the people fight these laws will lawmakers back down. If you are not actively participating in the fight against these abusive sex offender laws, then you are part of the problem!</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-57612232614145118142010-05-26T23:51:00.002-04:002010-05-27T00:40:59.091-04:00FL: Governor Signs Bill to Criminalize Sex Offender Loitering<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-crist-touts-child-protection-bill-20100526,0,7296122.story">orlandosentinel.com</a>: Crist signs bill in Orlando strengthening sex offender laws.<br /><br />Gov. Charlie Crist signed a bill today that strengthens Florida's laws against sex offenders and predators.<br /><br />Crist signed the bill — which <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">makes it illegal for sex offenders and predators to loiter or prowl within 300 feet of a place where children congregate </span>— in front of several-dozen parents, teachers and staff at Timber Lakes Elementary School. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(How does a police officer define loitering? It is a subjective determination and is open to abusive application)</span><br /><br />The legislation also makes it illegal for sex offenders or predators who were previously convicted of a crime against children, to:<br /><br />• <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Approach a child in a public park</span> with the intent to engage in sexual conduct or sexual communication<br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(It is illegal to do that in any place at any time, already)</span><br /><br />•<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Be at a child care facility or school</span> without prior notification or approval<br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(Many people required to register as sex offenders are parents of school children and have every right to be at their child's school just like any other parent)</span><br /><br />The bill also limits sex offenders and predators from <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">participating in activities that would be attractive to children, such as dressing up in costumes like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(This is just plain ridiculous, unconstitutional and unenforceable in all but public settings)</span><br /><br />Crist noted the legislation was passed unanimously.The bill signing prompted applause from the parents and staff who gathered in the school's media center to see the governor. "Now we get to protect our children more," Crist said. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(He is clearly pandering for political advantage, which is disgraceful and ignorant of the facts that </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders/">only 2% of child sex offenses are committed by strangers</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">)</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-35416795901282331732010-05-26T18:15:00.003-04:002010-05-26T18:28:37.908-04:00Scotland Sex Offenders Win Human Rights Fight<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scots-sex-offenders-win-human-rights-fight-1.1029070">heraldscotland.com (Scotland)</a>: Scots sex offenders win human rights fight -The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Judges have ruled the system that places sex offenders in Scotland on a register for life with no way of being removed is in breach of their human rights.</span><br /><br />In a landmark judgment involving a convicted sex offender who was placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely at the age of 15, three judges said the scheme, as it stands, is<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).</span><br /><br />It means hundreds of people in Scotland could appeal their cases and challenge their inclusion on the register, while <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Scottish ministers will now have to change the law to bring the system into line with European legislation.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In future, the system will have to allow offenders to be able to apply for their removal from the register if they can prove they no longer pose a risk.</span><br /><br />The decision follows the judgment last month of the Supreme Court, the highest in the land, to unanimously dismiss a Home Office challenge in relation to two English offenders who were on the register for life.<br /><br />Lawyers for 52-year-old Angus Thompson and a teenager, who raped a child when he was aged just 11, successfully argued that the lack of opportunity to demonstrate they had reformed was a breach of their human rights.<br /><br />The new UK Government may now have to adapt legislation to make provision for those who want their inclusion on the register re-examined.<br /><br />The sex offenders register contains the details of anyone convicted, cautioned or released from prison for a sexual offence against children or adults since September 1997, when it was set up.<br /><br />There are 3913 registered sex offenders in Scotland, of which 1631 are subject to the notification requirements for an indefinite period <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(for life)</span>.<br /><br />In the Scottish case, Lord Hamilton, the lord president, Lord Reed and Lady Smith upheld the appeal of Mr A – who pled guilty in 1993 at the High Court in Airdrie to two charges of assault with intent to rape, one of which included an element of robbery. He was 14 at the time of the offences.<br /><br />While the case is to be continued later next month – to decide on how it affects ministers and to what extent it will be applied retrospectively – <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">lawyers said it was agreed yesterday that Scottish ministers will have to change the law.</span><br /><br />Tony Kelly, his solicitor, said: “This outcome was inevitable given the recent declaration by the United Kingdom Supreme Court that the Sex Offender Notification Scheme, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, was incompatible with convention rights – in that it failed to provide a mechanism for review to enable offenders to apply for their removal from the register.<br /><br />“The court has continued the matter to discuss and decide upon the question of the remedy to be afforded to: the particular petitioner in this case; and Scottish ministers.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“This has important ramifications in relation to sex offender notification for the past and in the future.”</span><br /><br />Kelly added: “Scottish ministers’ recognition that legislation will require to be forthcoming (and that in early course) is, perhaps, an indicator of the significance of this ruling for the Sex Offender Registration Scheme in Scotland.”<br /><br />Offenders are placed on the register for life if they are sentenced to 30 months or more in jail. Any convicted offender on the register has to notify the police of their personal details, any change of address and when they travel abroad.<br /><br />A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We will consider the impact of any judgment on the notification regime as it relates to offenders subject to indefinite notification. The objective is to have in Scotland a notification system that will be compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<br /><br />“The Scottish Government’s priority is protecting the public. Scotland has one of the most robust systems of managing sex offenders in the world. The notification requirements form an important part of this system. They provide an invaluable tool to the authorities in allowing the police to keep track of the whereabouts of individual sex offenders; and managing the risk of known sex offenders.”<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Once again, High Courts in other countries are far ahead of U.S. Courts. The European Court of Human Rights gets it. The have recognized much sooner than U.S. Courts, that applying lifetime sex offender registration with no possibility or means to prove their way off the list, is a violation of rights. Now, when will U.S. Courts get it?</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-71909989205729381062010-05-26T18:06:00.002-04:002010-05-26T18:13:13.402-04:00TX: City Council Expands Sex Offender Residency Restrictions<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.kens5.com/news/Boerne-city-council-votes-to-expand-sex-offender-boundary-lines-and-prohibited-lists-94893779.html">kens5.com (TX):</a> Boerne city council votes to expand sex offender boundary lines and prohibited lists.<br /><br />In a vote of 4-1, <a href="http://www.ci.boerne.tx.us/GoverningBodies/CouncilMembers/tabid/97/Default.aspx">Boerne City Council</a> made it<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> unlawful for registered sex offenders to reside within 1500 feet of places where children gather.</span><br /><br />Prior to this, state law prohibited registered sex offenders from going within 1000 feet of just schools or parks. Boerne has expanded that list to<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> include public and private playgrounds, daycares, public libraries, and more.</span><br /><br />The vote came after an hour and a half of debate. One councilman called it a very decisive issue for the city. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The community seemed split down the middle in their support for it or against it.</span><br /><br />Those against it argued it would severely limit the areas in which registered sex offenders could live. Thus, it would <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">create a cluster of sex offenders</span>. That would lower property values in those areas, and make it unsafe for the children who already live in those areas.<br /><br />Another big argument against the ordinance was that it was <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">not ethical or even an effective way to protect children.</span> The councilman who voted against it said, "The threat to our children is so much less the guy in the trench coat hiding under the street light. As it is, it's the people they already know. The vast majority of crimes to children are committed by the people they know."<br /><br />Council also voted to increase the fine for anyone who violates this ordinance from $500 to $2000.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">As reported, about half those residents understand that these residency limits do not work, and cause unintended negative consequences for the city. Sadly, their <a href="http://www.ci.boerne.tx.us/GoverningBodies/CouncilMembers/tabid/97/Default.aspx">city council </a>is still ignorant about these facts and is still hand-picking low-hanging political fruit from the tree.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-57983310761019833392010-05-26T17:59:00.003-04:002010-05-26T18:05:41.839-04:00WI: Law Adds Video Voyeurs to Sex Offender Registry<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=12542029">wbay.com(WI)</a>: Law Adds Video Voyeurs to Sex Offender Registry.<br /><br />A new state law now lets judges put video voyeurs on the sex offender registry. Video voyeurism is classified as a felony. It's when someone records another person in the nude without their consent, makes copies of the recording, or distributes them.<br /><br />The law says if a person is convicted of video voyeurism, a court can order them to register with the Department of Corrections as a sex offender.<br /><br />"Hopefully for the persons with cell phones and all these things, persons thinking of taking an inappropriate picture and putting it on the Internet, that maybe they'll think twice," Representative Ted Zigmunt said.<br /><br />"It might take a little time, but as soon as you start seeing persons' pictures out there on the sex offender registry it's going to hit home for a lot of people," Brown County sheriff's captain Jeff Sanborn said.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This is just more dilution of the stated intent of these registries. With so many people listed on sex offender registries, their original purpose is lost.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-2412208144055636082010-05-26T17:52:00.002-04:002010-05-26T17:56:13.423-04:00WI: Appeals Court Changes Rules for Young Adults as Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wtaq.com/news/articles/2010/may/26/appeals-court-changes-rules-young-adults-sex-offen/">wtaq.com (WI)</a>: Appeals Court Changes Rules for Young Adults as Sex Offenders.<br /><br />Madison, Wisconsin - A state appeals court changed the rules Wednesday for exempting young adults from registering as convicted sex offenders, if they’re caught having consensual sex with minors.<br /><br />The law says offenders do not have to register if they’re less than 4 years older than their victims. But the 2nd District Appeals Court in Waukesha said the four-year calculation should be based on the actual birthdays of the 2 parties – and not their calendar year ages.<br /><br />It means that Matthew Parmley of Sheboygan must register with the state as a sex offender – because he was 4 years and 4 months older than the girl he was convicted of having sex with in 2004. Parmley had asked that be exempt from registering – and while a circuit judge agreed with him, the appellate court did not.<br /><br />Appeals Judge Daniel Anderson said the old formula allowed for a nearly 5-year age difference in some cases, and that was not the intent of the law. There was no immediate word on whether Parmley would appeal to the State Supreme Court.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-56362019673123319842010-05-26T00:30:00.004-04:002010-05-26T00:51:32.079-04:00Woman Sentenced to Life for Letting Minor Touch Her Breasts<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.magicvalley.com/news/local/article_441731b0-5a17-5b4f-8890-a70bc318ae88.html">magicvalley.com</a>: Twin Falls woman sentenced to life for lewdness charge.<br /><br />Elko, Nevada — A Twin Falls woman <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">convicted of forcing a 13-year-old boy to touch her breasts was sentenced Monday to life in prison.</span><br /><br />Taylor, 34, was convicted of lewdness with a minor under 14 in November after a week-long trial in Elko County, Nev., District Judge Mike Memeo’s courtroom.<br /><br />With the conviction, Taylor faced a mandatory life sentence, and Memeo set parole eligibility after 10 years, the minimum sentence. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If released on parole she must register as a sex offender and will be under lifetime supervision.</span><br /><br />The district attorney’s office did not offer a plea agreement in the case, said public defender Alina Kilpatrick, who argued the sentence is unconstitutional and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">doesn’t fit the crime.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“The jury was not allowed to know the potential sentence in this case</span> and the Legislature doesn’t know the facts,” she said, alluding to the minimum sentence set by the Legislature in Nevada Revised Statute.<br /><br />Kilpatrick said despite the parole eligibility after 10 years, there should be no mistake that it’s a life sentence for Taylor. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“She is getting a greater penalty for having a boy touch her breast than if she killed him,”</span> she said.<br /><br />After he sentenced her, Memeo said he was bound by state statute to impose the life sentence, but said he isn’t sure why the prosecution chose to charge her under that statute.<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> (After? You should have questioned this before sentencing, you idiot)</span><br /><br />Taylor, who lived in Jackpot, Nev., at the time of the crime, kissed a friend’s child, forced him to touch her breast and asked him to have sex with her in February 2008. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(If this is a fact, then why was she not charged on this allegation? Because it was not prosecuted , it is unlikely to be true. )</span><br /><br />Taylor claimed she was intoxicated and doesn’t remember what happened that night. She told jurors she roughhoused with the boy, but didn’t force him to touch her inappropriately.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">As long as murderers get more lenient sentencing than sex offenders do, this societal sex offender hysteria should eventually collapse. As it is now, sex offenders are encouraged by the legal system to kill their victims rather than allow them to live. Is that the incentive we want? If they simply murder the victim, there is no one to testify against them. They would get a much lighter sentence and be completely "free" after completing their sentence, rather than being listed on a sex offender registry for the remainder of their life.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-70595926947541624122010-05-25T13:04:00.004-04:002010-05-25T13:18:29.684-04:00Branding the Scarlet Letter: Special ID for Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Special-ID-Needed-for-Sex-Offenders-Ambers-Dad-94821294.html">nbcsandiego.com</a>: Special ID Needed for Sex Offenders.<br /><br />The father of murdered Escondido teenager Amber Dubois wants all convicted sex offenders to carry special identification. Moe Dubois wants the state <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">to require all sex offenders carry a distinctive driver's license or state-issued card that would be branded with a special mark indicating that person had been convicted of a sex crime.</span><br /><br />Dubois says he knows the legislation could meet resistance at the state capitol by those who may argue more <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">restrictions won’t make communities safer or those who say the law would infringe on the civil liberties of sex offenders.</span> Others could be concerned about the potential cost.<br /><br />The driver's license measure is part of a four-bill package aimed at cracking down on sex offenders -- and Moe Dubois says he's ready to fight to try and push them through. Dubois is scheduled to introduce his legislation proposals in Long Beach at noon today.<br /><br />California wouldn't be the first state to impose a law branding ID cards.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In Delaware sex offenders get a new driver's license after release from prison marked with the letter "Y" designating them as someone convicted of a sex crime.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In Louisiana people convicted of certain sex crimes are issued licenses with "SEX OFFENDER" printed in bold on the ID.<br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 146px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S_wF6x8cD5I/AAAAAAAABGI/N5mbZZ0C8Co/s200/yellowbadge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5475257754373066642" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge">Yellow Badge</a>: The yellow badge (or yellow patch), also referred to as a Jewish badge, was a cloth patch that Jews were ordered to sew on their outer garments in order to mark them as Jews in public. It is intended to be a badge of shame associated with antisemitism.[1] In both Christian and Islamic countries, persons not of the dominant religion were intermittently compelled by sumptuary laws to wear badges, hats, bells or other items of clothing that distinguished them from members of the dominant religious group.<br /><br />The yellow badge that was compulsory in the Middle Ages was revived by the German Nazis.</span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S_wGRcED_QI/AAAAAAAABGQ/_duYiyhW4TI/s1600/yellowbadge1.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 100px; height: 90px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S_wGRcED_QI/AAAAAAAABGQ/_duYiyhW4TI/s200/yellowbadge1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5475258143636454658" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-12505873296053070762010-05-24T15:45:00.002-04:002010-05-24T15:50:27.729-04:00Even Sex Offenders Have Rights in Need of Protection<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20100524/OPINION01/5240305/Even-sex-offenders-have-rights-in-need-of-protection">mycentraljersey.com</a>: Even sex offenders have rights in need of protection.<br /><br />At first glance, <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court/">the Supreme Court ruling on Monday</a> allowing dangerous sexual offenders in psychiatric units to be locked up after they've completed their prison sentences until they are considered safe seems logical. After all, if they are deemed a danger to society, they must be kept away from society. That's simple to understand. Many states use what is called civil commitment to hold dangerous sexual offenders after their prison terms have expired.<br /><br />But considered further, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the ruling is troubling as it dangerously blurs the line between the criminal justice system and the mental health system.</span><br /><br />If a sex offender is in prison for a sex crime, he is being punished for his crime. If a sex offender is in a psychiatric unit following his prison sentence, then the implication is that he should have qualified for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A prisoner does not become mentally ill the moment he leaves prison.</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> The mental state of the offender should be established at the onset.</span> If it is determined that he is a threat to the public and will continue to pose a threat by virtue of his mental state, then civil commitment should be used.<br /><br />The ruling underscores the vexing problem of how we as a society need to reevaluate the categorization and treatment of sex offenders. It is enduringly difficult finding the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">balance between the safety of society as a whole versus the rights of an individual, especially if that individual has paid his debt to society.</span><br /><br />"The fact that the federal government has the authority to imprison a person for the purpose of punishing him for a federal crime — sex-related or otherwise — does not provide the government with the additional power to exercise indefinite civil control over that person," said Justice Clarence Thomas in the dissenting opinion.<br /><br />While it is tempting to say to the federal government "go for it" when it comes to the open-ended confinement of sexual offenders by any means,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> we must be wary of a government overstepping its boundaries when it comes to removing the rights of select groups of citizens.</span><br /><br />There is a recent — and glaring — history of a state using the mental health system to impose its will on the public. In the Soviet Union, psychiatric hospitals were de facto prisons used to punish political and religious dissenters. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Let's keep our society safe, yes, but not at any cost.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-1617628601323428322010-05-24T15:32:00.002-04:002010-05-24T15:35:41.373-04:00The Unconstitutionality and Inefficacy of Sex Offender Residency Laws<span style="font-size:85%;">Irregular Passion: The Unconstitutionality and Inefficacy of Sex Offender Residency Laws<br />by Sarah E. Agudo: Northwestern University - School of Law; Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government<br /><a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n1/307/LR102n1Agudo.pdf"><br />Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 102, No. 307, 2008</a> (download paper <a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n1/307/LR102n1Agudo.pdf">here</a>)<br /><br />Abstract: <br />Sex offenders are among the most hated members of our society. In recent years, laws protecting society from these offenders have grown increasingly broad; the restrictions have become more severe and applicable to more people. Residency laws, which dictate where sex offenders can live upon release from prison or while on parole, exemplify this trend. Twenty-two states in the United States currently have some form of residency law that restricts where sex offenders can live. For example, many states prohibit sex offenders from living within 1000-2500 feet of schools, bus stops, or daycare centers. Today, public outrage and political risk-aversion have driven these laws to the outer boundaries of constitutionality.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> It is likely that these recent expansions of sex offender legislation and the ensuing litigation over their constitutionality will prompt a Supreme Court decision establishing the limit on states' control over their released offenders</span>. Reasonable and constitutionally acceptable residency laws may well exist. The aim of this Comment is not to call for the abolition of all residency laws, but rather to promote a cogent dialogue regarding the upper bounds of their effectiveness and constitutionality in order to provide a framework for future legislation. Although, in many areas of law, democratic processes can adequately safeguard those bounds, the public outrage against sex offenders threatens to chill the usual political protections and justifies careful judicial oversight. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-36886241984995716942010-05-24T15:19:00.002-04:002010-05-24T15:22:00.754-04:00Criminal Justice Resources: Sex Offender Residency Restrictions<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.llrx.com/features/sexoffenderresidency.htm">llrx.com</a>: Criminal Justice Resources: Sex Offender Residency Restrictions - </span><span class="submitted" style="font-size:85%;">By <a href="http://www.llrx.com/authors/960">Ken Strutin</a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><p style=""><span style="font-size:85%;">There are laws in more than 20 states and hundreds of communities limiting or proscribing where convicted sex offenders may live and work. <i>See</i> <a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=302066">Lawsuits Test Crackdown On Sex Criminals</a>, Stateline.org, April 18, 2008; <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-25-sex-offender-laws-cover_x.htm">Sex-Offender Residency Laws Get Second Look</a>, USA Today, Feb. 26, 2007. These residency zones or exclusions are frequently imposed in conditions of probation and parole or as a facet of registration laws. They raise constitutional issues in addition to the practical problems created by shutting off access to family members, affordable housing, employment, therapeutic treatment and public services. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">This article collects recent court decisions, research papers and reports that have addressed the efficacy of exclusionary zoning laws and the impact of these restrictions on sex offenders reentering their communities. For additional resources on Megan's Law and the Adam Walsh Act, <i>see generally</i> Ken Strutin, <a href="http://www.llrx.com/features/sexoffenderlaws.htm">Sex Offender Laws</a>, LLRX, Sept. 28, 2007; and <a href="http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/issues/sexoffenderresources?opendocument">Sex Offender Resources</a> (NACDL).</span></p> <h3><span style="font-size:85%;">Case Law</span></h3> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Restrictions have been challenged on a variety of constitutional grounds, such as substantive due process, equal protection, right to travel, ex post facto, bill of attainder (e.g., banishment), and taking of property. <i>See</i> <a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=163253">Anti-Sex-Offender Zoning Laws Challenged</a>, Stateline.org, Dec. 9, 2006. Recent appellate decisions show how these laws fare in the gristmill of constitutional analysis, and offer insight into possible paths to Supreme Court resolution. <i>See</i> <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/05/exactly-when-an.html%E2%80%9D">Exactly When And How Will Scotus Confront Sex Offender Residency Restrictions?</a>, Sentencing Law and Policy Blog, May 14, 2008. </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Georgia:</strong> <a href="http://www.gasupreme.us/pdf/s07a1043.pdf">Mann v. Dept. Of Corrections</a>, 282 Ga. 754, 653 S.E.2d 740 (2007)<br />"Although we earlier determined appellant's property interest in his rent-free residence at his parents' home to be 'minimal,' Mann, supra, 278 Ga. at 443 (2), we find appellant's property interest in the Hibiscus Court residence he purchased with his wife to be significant. As a registered sex offender, the locations where appellant may reside are severely restricted by OCGA § 42-1-15 (a); as recognized by other states, those locations may also be subject to private limitations, see Mulligan v. Panther Valley Prop. Owners Assn., 766 A2d 1186 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001) (discussing homeowner association covenants prohibiting sale of property to sex offenders), and we note that HN5 nothing in OCGA § 42-1-12 et seq. expressly precludes Georgia cities and counties from enacting additional restrictions. See Wernick, In Accordance with a Public Outcry: Zoning Out Sex Offenders Through Residence Restrictions in Florida, 58 Fla. L. Rev. 1147, 1163-1164 (2006) (discussing ordinances enacted by local governments in Florida that have expanded state statutory buffer zones). Nevertheless, appellant and his wife were able to find and purchase a house that complied with the residency restriction in OCGA § 42-1-15. The evidence is uncontroverted that the Hibiscus Court property was purchased for the sole purpose of serving as their home. OCGA § 42-1-15, by prohibiting appellant from residing at the Hibiscus Court house, thus utterly impairs appellant's use of his property as the home he shares with his wife." </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Illinois:</strong> <a href="http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2007/3rdDistrict/December/3060362.pdf">People v. Morgan</a>, 377 Ill. App. 3d 821, 881 N.E.2d 507, 317 Ill. Dec. 339 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2007)<br />"Defendant, [a convicted sex offender] . . . , was convicted following a jury trial of knowingly residing within 500 feet of a school building that persons under the age of 18 attended (720 ILCS 5/11-9.3(b-5) (West 2006). Defendant was sentenced to 30 months' probation and fined. Defendant appeals his conviction and fines. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. Turning to the subsection at issue in the instant case, we adopt the reasoning and analysis employed by the Fifth District in Leroy and apply it to the subsection under consideration before us. In doing so, we find that the law is constitutional. We conclude that, in accordance with the analysis employed by the court in Leroy, section 11-9.3(b-5) does not constitute an impermissible ex post facto law. Therefore, defendant's argument must fail."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Indiana:</strong> <a href="http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05130807pdm.pdf">State v. Pollard</a>, No. 05A02-0707-CR-640 (Ind. Ct. App. May 13, 2008)<br />"For all of these reasons, we hold that Indiana Code section 35-42-4-11, otherwise known as the residency statute, is an ex post facto law as applied to a person in Pollard’s circumstances. The residency statute is a criminal statute that criminalizes residency because of the resident’s status as a sex offender. In addition, the statute’s effect is punitive because it is applied retroactively to sex offenders who established ownership and property rights in a residence prior to the effective date of the statute, and because it forces them to relinquish some or all of their ownership rights or face a felony charge. Perhaps most importantly, Indiana’s residency statute does not exempt ownership established prior to the statute, provide a constitutional taking procedure, or exempt ownership impacted by later construction of a protected facility or area."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Iowa:</strong> <a href="http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20080411/06-0863.pdf">Wright v. Iowa Dept Of Corrections</a>, No. 01 / 06–0863 (Iowa April 11, 2008)<br />"Floyd Wright, who was convicted of a sexual offense against a minor in 1977, challenges the district court's ruling that he was subject to the residency restrictions of Iowa Code section 692A.2A (2005), which prohibits sex offenders from residing within two thousand feet of certain facilities such as schools. Wright contends that he is not subject to the statute because he was not a "registered" sex offender. Even if the statute were applicable, Wright contends it would violate his equal protection and substantive due process rights and would be invalid as a bill of attainder. The district court rejected his arguments, and so do we."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Missouri:</strong> <a href="http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/3103a986b6d147ff862573f400526863?OpenDocument">R.L. v. Missouri Department Of Corrections</a>, 245 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. 2008)<br />"The same long-standing principles applied in Phillips apply in this case. As with the registration requirements in Phillips, the residency restrictions at issue in this case impose a new obligation upon R.L. and those similarly situated by requiring them to change their place of residence based solely upon offenses committed prior to enactment of the statute. Attaching new obligations to past conduct in this manner violates the bar on retrospective laws set forth in article I, section 13."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Ohio:</strong> <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2008/2008-ohio-2036.pdf">City of Middleburg Heights v. Brownlee</a>, 2008 Ohio 2036, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 1739 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County May 1, 2008)<br />"Defendant John F. Brownlee, Jr. (appellant) appeals the court's granting an injunction prohibiting him from residing within 1,000 feet of a school. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we reverse the court's ruling and order the injunction vacated. In the instant case, appellant bought his home in 1972; he committed the offensive acts in February and March 2003; and the statute's effective date is July 31, 2003. Accordingly, the court erred when it applied R.C. 2950.031 to appellant, and his first assignment of error is sustained."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>Ohio:</strong> <a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-Ohio-542.pdf">Hyle v. Porter</a>, 117 Ohio St. 3d 165, 2008 Ohio 542, 882 N.E.2d 899 (2008)<br />"We hold that HN1R.C. 2950.031 does not apply to an offender who bought his home and committed his offense before the effective date of the statute. The judgment of the First District Court of Appeals is reversed."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong>United States:</strong><i>Validity Of Statutes Imposing Residency Restrictions On Registered Sex Offenders</i>, 25 ALR6th 227<br />"In recent years, a number of state or local statutes imposing residency restrictions on registered sex offenders have been enacted. In Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700, 25 A.L.R.6th 695 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 757, 163 L. Ed. 2d 574 (U.S. 2005) (applying Iowa law), the court of appeals held that an Iowa statute that prohibited persons who had committed a criminal sex offense against a minor from residing within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, was not retroactive criminal punishment in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, did not interfere with the right of sex offenders to travel, and did not violate the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. This annotation collects and summarizes those cases in which the courts have determined the validity of state or local statutes imposing residency restrictions on registered sex offenders."<br /></span></li></ul> <h3><span style="font-size:85%;">Articles</span></h3> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Scholars and researchers have examined the effectiveness of residency restrictions on sex offender behavior and its lawfulness as punishment. </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959847">Banishment By A Thousand Laws: Residency Restrictions On Sex Offenders</a>, 85 Wash. U. L. Rev. 101 (2007)<br />"Across America, states, localities, and private communities are debating and implementing laws to limit the places of residence of convicted sex offenders. Nineteen states and hundreds, if not thousands, of local communities have adopted statutes which severely limit the places where a sex offender may legally live. In this article, I trace these new laws to historical practices of banishment in Western societies. I argue that the establishment of exclusion zones by states and localities is a form of banishment that I have termed 'internal exile.' Establishing the connection to banishment punishments helps to explain the unique legal, policy, and ethical problems these laws create for America. Ultimately, residency restrictions could fundamentally alter basic principles of the American criminal justice system. While those supporting these laws have the interests of children at heart, the policies they are promoting will be worse for children and society."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902912">Constitutional Collectivism And Ex-Offender Residence Exclusion Zones</a>, 92 Iowa L. Rev. 1 (2006)<br />"The US has often been imperiled by the competing interests of individual states, and while past threats have most frequently assumed economic or political form, this article addresses a different threat: state efforts to limit where ex-offenders (those convicted of sex crimes in particular) can live. The laws have thus far withstood constitutional challenge, with courts deferring to the police power of states. This deference, however, ignores the negative externalities created when states jettison their human dross, and defies Justice Cardozo's oft-repeated constitutional tenet that "the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together." The article discusses the continued need for this tenet in the face of state expulsionist tendencies and invokes in support the Court's decisions invalidating state laws barring entry of the poor and solid waste. In both instances, the Court, while acknowledging the exigencies motivating states, invalidated the laws because they betrayed the national imperative of dealing with challenges faced by all states. As the article establishes, a kindred understanding and resolve is now necessary as states seek to isolate themselves from the shared national responsibility of offender reentry."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977263">Controlling Sex Offender Reentry: Jessica's Law Measures In California</a> (SSRN 2006)<br />"This paper examines current research on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring and residential restrictions in preventing recidivism amongst sex offenders in California, as well as the experiences of other states that have experimented with these techniques. The paper focuses on four questions: 1) What are the trends in California sex offense data and other states with sizable sex offender populations? 2) What does research and other state experiences tell us about the effectiveness of electronic monitoring in preventing recidivism and absconding of sex offenders? 3) What does research and other state experiences tell us about the effectiveness of residential restrictions in preventing recidivism of sex offenders? 4) In light of California's sex offender population, and CDCR's current methods for supervising paroled sex offenders, what challenges would CDCR and other state agencies likely face in implementing expanded electronic monitoring and residential restrictions?"<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/484">Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis Of Sex Offense Recidivism</a>, 35 Crim. Just. & Behavior 484 (2008)<br />"In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would significantly reduce sexual recidivism."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://tinyurl.com/5asles">Has Georgia Gone Too Far-Or Will Sex Offenders Have To?</a>, 35 Hastings Const. L.Q. 309 (2008) $<br />"Given the wide range of issues that were presented by Georgia's latest sex offender residency restriction, this note will discuss how Georgia's new residency restriction statute, as originally written, violated (1) the Ex Post Facto Clause, (2) the Eighth Amendment, (3) Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (4) the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Lastly, the note will analyze potential issues under the Dormant Commerce Clause and other policy considerations to argue that, in practice, the use of such harsh residency restrictions might make for a more dangerous situation for children, sex offenders, and the rest of society."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/5951/1/Boyd.pdf">How To Stop A Predator The Rush To Enact Mandatory Sex Offender Residency Restrictions And Why States Should Abstain</a> 86 Or. L. Rev. 219 (2007) "A new trend in state legislation emerged as twenty-two states entered legally unsettled waters by enacting various residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders. Legislators tout the need for such residency restrictions to reduce child sex offenders' opportunities for contact with potential victims. However, courts disagree whether these new laws are constitutional, and research increasingly questions their utility. This Comment will first look at the primary legal questions facing the courts, examining various legal challenges to state residency restrictions and the limited research surrounding the efficacy of such restrictions. Next, this Comment will address the 2006 California ballot measure Proposition 83, which serves as a practical case study of these new restrictions and their unsettled legal ramifications. Finally, this Comment will examine Oregon's nonmandatory residency restriction and explain why it serves as the best model for achieving the goals of protecting our children, monitoring the sex offender population, and withstanding judicial review. Ultimately, this Comment will attempt to show that research on mandatory residency restrictions may affect the way future courts rule on these restrictions. This Comment will also attempt to persuade those presently in favor of mandatory residency restrictions that more flexible, nonmandatory restrictions will increase the likelihood of achieving their stated objectives."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1101572">In The Zone: Sex Offenders And The Ten Percent Solutions</a> (SSRN 2008)<br />"This Article challenges prevailing judicial orthodoxy that many sex offender residency restrictions are constitutional under the federal Ex Post Facto Clause. The paper applies the analytical framework in Smith v. Doe, the Court's most recent case involving sex offender legislation. It also forges a new way of thinking about these regimes as land-use policies that "negatively" zone individuals out of the urban cores. The paper proposes an innovative "positive" zoning scheme, the Sex Offender Containment Zone, that zones high-risk convicted sex offenders back into the city and that is effective, humane, and constitutional."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v102/n1/307/LR102n1Agudo.pdf">Irregular Passion: The Unconstitutionality And Inefficacy Of Sex Offender Residency Laws</a>, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 307 (2008)<br />"The Comment concludes that non-tailored residency laws are unconstitutional. These same laws are also unwise and ineffective in terms of their stated goals, rendering them poor policy decisions. Given their ineffectiveness and the threat they pose to fundamental rights, this Part argues that it is important that courts assess the laws rigorously and without bias, particularly because the political outlash against sex offenders is immense, irrational, and hard for legislators to reverse. Until courts correctly deem these non-tailored residency laws unconstitutional, both the rights of sex offenders and the safety of their potential victims will be at risk due to the crippling political outrage surrounding the issue."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29886458_ITM">Never Going Home: Does It Make Us Safer? Does It Make Sense? Sex Offenders, Residency Restrictions And Reforming Risk Management Law</a>, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 317 (2006)<br />"One of the most hotly debated issues in criminal law today is how to manage the perceived risk of sex offenders loose in the community. Beyond mandatory registration and community notification, over a dozen states, including Illinois, have enacted residency restrictions that forbid sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, parks, day care centers, or even "places where children normally congregate." This Comment scrutinizes these laws to see if they make sense, and more importantly, if they make us safer. The answer to both questions appears to be no. After detailing the statistical, political, and constitutional problems that render these restrictions ineffective and unconstitutional, I shift my attention to envisioning a better system of risk management. I end by critically examining best practice methods of states across the country that more effectively allocate finite resources to identify and control high risk offenders to prevent them from harming again, while allowing the vast majority of offenders who are low risk to better re-integrate into and become productive members of society."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/Off%20to%20Elba.pdf">Off To Elba: The Legitimacy Of Sex Offender Residence And Employment Restrictions</a>, 40 Akron L. Rev. 339 (2007)<br />"This article will look at why sex offenders are treated differently than other criminal offenders. Sex offenders are subject to sanctions and prohibitions above and beyond what other criminal offenders must face. Next, the article will look at some of the residence and employment restrictions placed on sex offenders to determine if they are rationally related to any legitimate government interest without overbearing the sex offender's constitutional rights. Finally, the article will offer an alternate means of sex offense prevention that encourages sex offender assimilation back into society instead of further exclusion."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.88">Reentry And Reintegration: Challenges Faced By The Families Of Convicted Sex Offenders</a>, 20 Fed. Sent. R. 88 (2007) $<br />"Our article will focus on the adult family members of convicted sex offenders and the many challenges they face in reuniting with their loved ones post-incarceration. We will explore the general knowledge on families of prisoners and incorporate preliminary findings from our ongoing research on the experiences and needs of families of convicted adult, male sex offenders."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977266">Sex Offender Re-Entry: A Summary And Policy Recommendation On The Current State Of The Law In California And How To 'Safely' Re-Introduce Sex Offenders Into Our Communities</a> (SSRN 2006)<br />"This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive review of the current and pending sex offender legislation in California, examine their effectiveness or ineffectiveness and any possible loopholes, and conclude with a broad recommendation on where the state of California's law and policies surrounding the safe release and supervision of sex offenders into the community should be heading. In doing so, the paper will rely on current statistics on sex offenders in California, policy recommendations by various organizations on this topic, media profiles and case histories of recent real-life sex crimes, and actual data from the California online sex offender registry to discover the profile of the "real" sex offender in California. This paper will also examine the roll of public outcry and moral panic in the implementation of these laws and the effect this may have had on their specific provisions and eventual effectiveness in order to provide a more comprehensive review of the impetus behind such regulations and hopefully to inform future legislation of the lessons of the past."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/December_2007/sexOffendResRestrictions.html">Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Sensible Crime Policy Or Flawed Logic?</a>, 71 Fed. Prob. 2 (Dec. 2007)<br />"Although 22 States now have laws that restrict where sex offenders can live, with 1,000 to 2,500-foot exclusionary zones being most common, research on the effects of sex-offender residence restrictions is limited. Only one study (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007) has specifically examined the relationship between residence restrictions and reoffending. That study was prospective, because no such law was in place where the study was conducted (Minnesota). There is a growing body of evidence, however, that residence restrictions have unintended consequences for sex offenders and communities. These adverse effects include homelessness for sex offenders; transience; lack of accessibility to social support, employment, and rehabilitative services; registry invalidity; and the clustering of sex offenders in poor, rural, or socially disorganized neighborhoods. Residence laws are often based on erroneous assumptions about sex-offender high reoffending rates and the belief that most sex offenders target strangers for victimization. In addition, they are rarely coupled with the administration of proven risk-assessment instruments and procedures. In the absence of evidence that residence restrictions are effective in achieving their intended goal of improved community safety, their unintended adverse effects may outweigh their benefits. It is crucial that research be conducted to determine whether residence restriction laws are effective."<br /></span></li></ul> <h3><span style="font-size:85%;">Reports</span></h3> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">State legislatures and government bureaus along with civil rights and other interested groups have published reports on the outcomes of residence and employment restrictions for sex offenders. </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/9.htm">IX. Residency Restriction Laws</a> in <a href="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/index.htm">No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws In The U.S.</a><br />"The inability of convicted sex offenders to find housing when they are released from prison has become a significant barrier to their successful reintegration into society. This is particularly problematic for registrants who have limited resources, or for those who because of work, community, or family obligations want to live in particular locations. Residency restrictions prevent offenders from living in the areas closest to jobs and public transit, since schools, daycare centers, and parks are often built in the center of main residential areas of cities and towns."<br /></span> (Human Rights Watch 2007) </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/06/08/06-008.pdf">Impact Of Residency Restrictions On Sex Offenders And Correctional Management Practices: A Literature Review</a> (California Research Bureau 2006)<br />"Today some communities in the United States banish sex offenders from living in their midst, resulting in a difficult dilemma: where can these offenders live, and where can they best be supervised and receive treatment, if available? This report describes local ordinances and state statutes restricting where a sex offender may reside, discusses what research has found so far about the success of these restrictions, considers the impact that these restrictions are having on criminal justice management practices and sex offender treatment regimens, and examines constitutional implications."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.llrx.com/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.corr.state.mn.us/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Proximity.pdf%E2%80%9D">Residential Proximity & Sex Offense Recidivism in Minnesota</a> (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007)<br />"In an effort to curb the incidence of sexual recidivism, state and local governments across the country have passed residency restriction laws. Designed to enhance public safety by protecting children, residency restrictions prohibit sex offenders and, in particular, child molesters from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of a school, park, playground or other location where children are known to congregate. Given that existing research has yet to fully investigate whether housing restrictions reduce sexual recidivism, the present study examines the potential deterrent effect of residency restrictions by analyzing the sexual reoffense patterns of the 224 recidivists released between 1990 and 2002 who were reincarcerated for a sex crime prior to 2006." <i>See also</i> <a href="http://www.corr.state.mn.us/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Recidivism.pdf%E2%80%9D">Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota</a> (Minnesota Department of Corrections 2007).<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.llrx.com/%E2%80%9Dhttp://theparson.net/so/Levenson.pdf%E2%80%9D">Sex Offender Residence Restrictions</a> (Report to the Florida Legislature 2005)<br />"Sexual violence is a serious social problem and policy-makers continue to wrestle with how to best address the public's concerns about sex offenders. Recent initiatives have included social policies that are designed to prevent sexual abuse by restricting where convicted sex offenders can live, often called "sex offender zoning laws," or "exclusionary zones." As these social policies become more popular, lawmakers and citizens should question whether such policies are evidence-based in their development and implementation, and whether such policies are cost-efficient and effective in reaching their stated goals."<br /></span> </li><li><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.cci.org/site/c.cdKGIRNqEmG/b.4010981/">Statement On Sex Offender Residency Restrictions In Iowa</a> (ICAA 2006)<br />"The Iowa County Attorneys Association believes that the 2,000 foot residency restriction for persons who have been convicted of sex offenses involving minors does not provide the protection that was originally intended and that the cost of enforcing the requirement and the unintended effects on families of offenders warrant replacing the restriction with more effective protective measures."</span></li></ul> <!-- end content --> <!--adsense: cached--> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-68937511468296467202010-05-24T13:18:00.003-04:002010-05-24T14:42:35.051-04:00Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.corrections.com/news/article/24500-facts-and-fiction-about-sex-offenders">corrections.com</a>:Facts and Fiction about Sex Offenders.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"The political outlash against sex offenders is immense, irrational, and hard for legislators to reverse."</span><br />-Sarah Agudo in the Northwestern University Law Review, 2008<br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth: Sex offenders are dirty old strangers who steal kids from playgrounds</span><br /><br />An Ohio prison intake report on sex offenders imprisoned in 1992 revealed that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2.2 percent of child molesters were strangers to their victims</span>, and 89 percent of perpetrators had never been convicted before.<br /><br />In their 1993 textbook, The Juvenile Sex Offender, Howard Barbaree and colleagues estimated that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> teenagers perpetrated 20 percent of all rapes and half of all child molestations.</span><br /><br />A 2006 report for the Ohio Sentencing Commission said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">93 percent of molestation victims were well known to their perpetrators, over half the offenders victimized close relatives, and 93 percent of molesters had never been arrested for a previous sex crime.</span><br /><br />A December 2009 study by David Finkelhor of UNH and colleagues for the US Justice Department analyzed national sex crime data from 2004. That year the estimated population of underage sex offenders was 89,000, and they had committed 35.8 percent of all sex crimes reported to police. One in eight juvenile sex offenders was under age 12. The study said that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">between 85 and 95 percent of young offenders would never face another sex charge.</span><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth: Residency restrictions are harmless to sex offenders and protect kids</span><br /><br />A 2005 survey of 135 Florida sex offenders by researchers Jill Levenson and Leo Cotter found that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">residency restrictions had forced 22 percent of this group to move out of homes they already owned</span>. 25 percent were unable to return to their homes after release from prison. Respondents agreed in varying degrees with these statements about the impact of residency restrictions on their lives:<br /><br /> * I cannot live with supportive family members. 30%<br /> * I find it difficult to find affordable housing. 57%<br /> * I have suffered financially. 48%<br /> * I have suffered emotionally. 60%<br /> * I have had to move out of an apartment that I rented. 28%<br /><br />The Iowa County Attorneys Association issued a position paper in 2006 opposing a 2,000 foot residency restriction against sex offenders from places where kids congregate. Among many criticisms, the prosecutors said,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> “Law enforcement has observed that the residency restriction is causing offenders to become homeless, to change residences without notifying authorities of their new locations, to register false addresses or to simply disappear.</span> If they do not register, law enforcement and the public do not know where they are living. The resulting damage to the reliability of the sex offender registry does not serve the interests of public safety.”<br /><br />A 2007 report by the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 224 sex offenders released from prison between 1999 and 2002 who committed new sex crimes prior to 2006. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The first contact between victim and offender never happened near a school, daycare center or other place where children congregate. The report concluded, “Not one of the 224 sex offenses would likely have been deterred by a residency restrictions law.”</span> The study warned that these laws isolate offenders in rural areas with little social and treatment support, with poor transportation access and with few job opportunities. The resulting increase in homelessness makes them harder to track and supervise. “Rather than lowering sexual recidivism,” the report said,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> “housing restrictions may work against this goal by fostering conditions that exacerbate sex offenders’ reintegration into society.”</span><br /><br />A position paper on the current website of the Iowa Association of Social Workers says that concentrations of Iowa sex offenders are living in motels, trailer parks, interstate highway rest stops, parking lots and tents. The site notes many other unintended consequences:<br /><br /> * Families of offenders who attempt to remain together are effectively subjected to the same restrictions, meaning that they too are <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">forced to move, and may have to leave jobs, de-link from community ties, and remove their children from schools and friends.</span><br /> * Physically or mentally impaired offenders who depend on family for regular support <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">are prevented from living with those on whom they rely for help.</span><br /> * Threat of family disruption may leave victims of familial sexual abuse <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">reluctant to report the abuse to authorities, thereby undermining the intention of the law.</span><br /> * Threat of being subjected to the residency restriction has led to a significant decrease in the number of offenders who, as part of the trial process, disclose their sexual offenses; consequently, fewer offenders are being held accountable for their actions.<br /> * <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Loss of residential stability, disconnection from family, and social isolation </span>run contrary to the “best practice” approaches for treatment of sex offenders and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">thus put offenders at higher risk of re-offense</span>.<br /> * <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">No distinction is made</span> between those offenders who pose a real risk to children and those who pose no known threat.<br /><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Myth: Treatment is a waste of money on sex offenders</span><br /><br />The New Hampshire Prison sex offender treatment program compiled recidivism data in 1999 for a national survey by the Colorado Department of Corrections. Lance Messenger, the New Hampshire program director at the time, reported a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">6.2% sex crime re-arrest rate after an average of 4.8 years on parole</span> for 204 men who completed the Intensive Sex Offender Treatment Program. The<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> recidivism rate was 12.4% for 435 sex offenders who received no treatment and had spent an average of 8.6 years in the community</span>. Messenger is now in private practice and recently told this writer his report did not constitute a rigorous scientific study.<br /><br />A Colorado recidivism study in 2003 led by Kerry Lowden tracked 3338 sex offenders released from prison between 1993 and 2002. After three years in the community, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">5.3 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime</span>. Each month an inmate took part in the intensive therapeutic community for sex offenders behind the walls reduced by 1 percent his risk of committing a later sex crime. The report said these treatment programs “profoundly improve public safety as measured by officially recorded recidivism.”<br /><br />Vermont corrections personnel tracked 195 adult male sex offenders over a six-year period ending in 2006. Those who completed sex offender treatment had a sex-offense <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">recidivism rate of 5.4 percent</span>.<br /><br />Lorraine R. Reitzel and Joyce L. Carbonell published a meta-analysis in 2006 of nine studies of recidivism among juvenile sex offenders with a combined sample of 2,986 kids. The sex crime recidivism rate was 12.5 percent for young offenders tracked for an average of 59 months. The rate was <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">7.37 percent for kids who had taken a sex offender treatment program</span> and 18.9 percent for those who had not.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><br /> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Fact: Most types of sex offenders have low sex-crime recidivism</span><br /><br />A report to the Ohio Sentencing Commission in 1989 said 8 percent of sex offenders were convicted of a new sex crime within a decade. The <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">10-year Ohio recidivism rate for incest was 7.4 percent.</span><br /><br />A 1998 Canadian Government study by Karl Hanson and Monique Bussiere, entitled “Predicting Relapse: A meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies,” examined 61 research efforts between 1943 and 1995 with a combined sample of 28,972 sex offenders. The overall recidivism rate for new sex offenses was 13.4 percent during the average follow-up period of four to five years. Of the 9,603 child molesters in the combined cohort, the rate was 12.7 percent. Some of these studies dated back to the period when only stereotype serial sex offenders went to prison, thus weighting the results toward greater recidivism.<br /><br />Roger Hood and three British colleagues followed 162 released sex offenders for four years and tracked 62 others for six years. Their report in 2002, entitled “Sex offenders emerging from long-term imprisonment; A Study of Their Long-term Reconviction Rates and of Parole Board Members' Judgements of Their Risk,” found <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">1.2 percent were re-imprisoned for a new sex crime after two years.</span> The report concluded, “These facts need to be more widely recognized and disseminated if there is to be rational debate on this emotive subject.”<br /><br />A 2000 Iowa Corrections study tracked 233 sex offenders released in 1995 and 1996 under a new sex offender registry law. That group had a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3 percent sex crime recidivism rate after 4.3 years in the community</span>. A similar control group of 201 sex offenders released before the registry law took effect had a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3.5 percent sex recidivism rate in the same length of time</span>. The group supervised under the registry had a somewhat lower average recidivism risk score to begin with, and it had a higher proportion of people on probation as opposed to parole. The difference in recidivism rates was statistically insignificant.<br /><br />A U.S. Justice Department report in 2003 tracked 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in New York, California, Ohio and 12 other large states in 1994. Their <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">recidivism rate for new sex arrests and convictions after three years on parole was 5.3 percent</span>. 7.3 percent of child molesters with two or more prior arrests for that crime were charged anew for molesting. That compares with a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2.4 percent sexual recidivism rate for child molesters with only one prior arrest for that crime.</span><br /><br />Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris published a 2004 report on 4,724 sex offenders in 10 Canadian and American samples ranging from 191 to 1,138 subjects. The average follow-up period was seven years after release. The overall sexual recidivism rates were 14 percent after five years, 20 percent after 10 years and 24 percent after 15 years. Incest offenders had corresponding rates of 6, 9 and 13 percent. Recidivism was defined as a new sex crime arrest or a new conviction. Counting only new convictions, the recidivism rates were generally half as high.<br /><br />Karl Hanson and Morton-Bourgon published a similar meta-analysis in 2005 of 73 recidivism studies with a combined cohort of 19,267 sex offenders. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">After an average of nearly six years in the community they had a new sex crimes recidivism rate of 14.3 percent.</span><br /><br />A 2005 report by Robert Barnoski of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy tracked the five-year sexual recidivism rates for 8,359 sex offenders released from Washington prisons between 1986 and 1999. Here are the results by year of release, showing the rate decreased over time.<br /><br /></span><table><tbody><tr><span class="article_content" style="font-size:13px;"></span><td><span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>Year</strong><br /> 1986<br />1987<br />1988<br />1989<br />1990<br />1991<br />1992<br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="padding-left: 20px;"><br /></span><br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><strong> 5-Year Rate</strong><br />6%<br />7.5%<br />7.5%<br />6%<br />7%<br />8%<br />6%<br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="padding-left: 40px;"><br /></span><br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>Year</strong><br />1993<br />1994<br />1995<br />1996<br />1997<br />1998<br />1999<br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="padding-left: 20px;"><br /></span><br /></span> </td> <td> <span style="font-size:78%;"><strong>5-Year Rate</strong><br />8%<br />6%<br />4.4%<br />3%<br />2%<br />3%<br />3.7%</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />A 2006 New York study analyzed the recidivism patterns for 19,827 sex offenders. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The rate for new sex offenses after one year in the community was 2 percent</span>. The cumulative rate increased to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3 percent after two years, 6 percent after five years, and 8 percent after 8 years.</span><br /><br />A 2006 California study followed 93 adjudicated high-risk sexually violent predators released from civil commitment at the Atascadero State Hospital. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Only 4.3 percent of these worst-of-the-worst offenders had committed new sex offenses after six years on the street.</span><br /><br />A 2007 study by the Missouri Department of Corrections tracked 3,166 sex offenders released between 1990 and 2002. Twelve percent had been re-arrested for a new sex crime in those 12 years, and 10 percent had been reconvicted. The report also looked at sex offenders released in 2002. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In the first three years on parole their sex crime recidivism rate was 3 percent</span>. The report concluded, “Due to the dramatic decrease in sexual recidivism since the early 1990s, recent <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sexual re-offense rates have been very low</span>, thus significantly limiting the extent to which sexual reoffending can be further reduced.”<br /><br />An Alaska Judicial Council report in 2007 said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3 percent of sex offenders had committed a new sex crime in their first three years after release from prison.</span><br /><br />A 2007 report by the Tennessee Department of Safety found that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">4.7 percent of 504 sex offenders released from prison in 2001 were arrested for a new sex offense after three years.</span> The sex crime recidivism rate was zero for offenders whose original crime was incest.<br /><br />A 2007 Minnesota Department of Corrections study tracked 3,166 sex offenders released from Minnesota prisons between 1990 and 2002. After an average of 8.4 years in the community, 10 percent had been convicted of a new sex offense. Those released in the beginning of the study period were much more likely to reoffend within three years than those released later -- 17 percent in 1990 as opposed to 3 percent in 2002.<br /><br />A 2007 report by Jared Bauer of the West Virginia Division of Corrections tracked 325 sex offenders for three years after release from prison in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The recidivism rate for any return to prison, not just for sex crimes, was 9.5 percent. Only six parolees returned for new sex related crimes, including three for failing to properly register as a sex offender. The sex crime <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">recidivism rate was slightly less than 2 percent. Only 1 percent had an actual sex crime victim.</span><br /><br />A 2008 report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tracked 4,280 sex offenders paroled in 2003. In the first year 2.43 percent had been arrested for new sex crimes. The cumulative totals were <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3.27 percent at the end of the second year and 3.55 percent after three years.</span><br /><br />A 2008 study by California's Sex Offender Management Board reported on 4,204 sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3.38 percent were convicted of new sex offenses in the next decade.</span><br /><br />Utah criminologist Larry Bench tracked 389 Utah sex offenders for up to 25 years after release. His 2008 report disclosed that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">7.2 percent had been arrested for a new sex crime.</span><br /><br />An Indiana Corrections report in the spring of 2009 found that sex offenders released in 2005 had compiled a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">1.05 percent sex crime re-conviction rate in three years</span>. The study said this rate was “extremely low” and showed “a great deal of promise.”<br /><br />Stan Orchowsky and Janice Iwama authored a 2009 study for the U.S. Justice Research and Statistics Association which showed similar low sex crime re-arrest rates after three years for sex offenders released from prison in 2001. The rates by state were as follows: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Alaska 3.4%, Arizona 2.3%, Delaware 3.8%, Illinois 2.4%, Iowa 3.9%, New Mexico 1.8%, South Carolina 4.0%, and Utah 9.0%. The comparison three-year national rate was 5.3 percent noted previously for inmates released in 1994. </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-81806215277746169752010-05-24T13:10:00.003-04:002010-05-24T13:17:43.837-04:00TN: Judge Puts Man Who Hasn't Been in Trouble for 21 Years on Sex Offender Registry<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_176321.asp">chattanoogan.com(TN)</a>: Judge Says "John Doe" Must Register As Sex Offender.<br /><br />Chancellor Frank Brown has ruled that a Chattanooga businessman must register as a sex offender, though his attorney said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">he has not been in trouble since moving here in 1989.</span><br /><br />The ruling in the 32-page opinion said the man identified thus far only as "John Doe" must register as a sex offender within 15 days unless an appeal was filed.<br /><br />His attorney, Jerry Summers, did file the appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.<br /><br />The opinion says the man was convicted of gross sexual imposition in <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">1983 </span>and served three years in prison in Ohio. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">At the time he moved to Chattanooga, there was no requirement that he register as a sex offender.</span><br />Click to learn more...<br /><br />The opinion says<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, "Since 1989, Mr. Doe has not been charged with or committed any sexual offense. He has established a business and been a productive member of society."</span> However, he received a letter from county detective Jimmy Clift at the end of March directing him to sign up on the sexual offender registry.<br /><br />The opinion says the defendant "looks at the sexual registry as <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">punitive</span> and claims that one cannot be punished now in a new manner for something that was not punishable in that matter when the crime was committed." <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(Ex Post Facto clause of the United States Constitution)</span><br /><br />It says two states have upheld that argument, but Tennessee has not.<br /><br />Chancellor Brown said, "This court of equity must follow the law. Despite understanding and acknowledging Mr. Doe's angst that he faces registration and would be required to perform certain activities now that were not required in 1983, this trial court must follow the law.<br /><br />"There is a presumption that laws enacted by the General Assembly are constitutional. The appellate authority cited above is that the Act and Amendments to the Act are constitutional. The Act is regulatory and not punitive. The Act is based upon public policy and safety of the public."<br /><br />He added, "The Tennessee appellate decisions have upheld the registration requirements. Thus, it certainly appears that Mr. Doe must register as an offender. At least, he must go through the TBI to determine if he must register. If he fails to do so, then <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">his failure to register can be a separate criminal offense." </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-1206337962785366432010-05-24T13:05:00.002-04:002010-05-24T13:09:37.613-04:00WI: Peeping Toms Now on Sex Offender Registry<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20100524/APC0101/5230524/Judges-sparingly-put-Peeping-Toms-on-state-sex-offender-registry">postcrescent.com(WI)</a>: Tracking voyeurism and Peeping Toms in the Fox Valley.<br /><br />Seven years ago, Kluck would have been charged with disorderly conduct, a generic, catchall category of crimes as minor as loud arguing. At most, he would have spent 90 days in jail and paid a $1,000 fine, and he would have maintained relative anonymity.<br /><br />But a change in the law in 2003 toughened the penalties for voyeurs, or so-called Peeping Toms, by adding the behavior under the state's invasion of privacy crime. Judges now can put offenders behind bars for nine months, fine them $10,000 and place their names on the state's public sex offender registry.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Once again, we see the dilution of the sex offender registries from their stated purpose - to list the more high risk potential offenders. These lists just keep growing and have become a joke.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-75894295389931569722010-05-24T01:13:00.004-04:002010-05-24T01:25:09.411-04:00Sex Offenders Barred from Having Most Low Level Jobs<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/05/sex_offenders_could_be_barred.html">nola.com(LA)</a>: Sex offenders could be barred from certain jobs under bill approved by Senate panel.<br /><br />Baton Rouge, LA -- <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Legislation that would prohibit sex offenders from working as drivers of cabs, limos or buses </span>won speedy approval today from a Senate committee.<br /><br />The Judiciary C Committee gave unanimous support to Senate Bill 780 by <a href="http://senate.legis.state.la.us/cheek/">Sen. Sherri Cheek,</a> R-Shreveport, moving to along to the Senate floor for debate.<br /><br />Besides the driving jobs, the bill also <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">would prohibit sex offenders from being employed as a "service worker who goes into residence" to provide a service -- like a janitor, handyman or maid</span>. It also would <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">prohibit those convicted of sex offenses involving minors from operating amusement park or carnival rides.</span><br /><br />If convicted of working in a job that is off-limits for sex offenders, the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">violator would be fined not more than $10,000 jailed for a minimum of five years and maximum of 10 years</span>. At least three must be served, according to the bill.<br /><br />Cheek said if the bill passes, it would go into effect when Gov. Bobby Jindal signs it, but would only apply to sexual offenses occurring after Aug. 15.<br /><br />State law<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> already bars sex offenders from working in jobs that puts them in contact with children</span>, and prohibits them from living within specific distances of facilities that cater to them, like day-care centers, schools and arcades. Cheek said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">she is also looking at ways to expand the list of prohibited jobs.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Jobs "which put them in contact with children" could be defined as most any lower level job. Think about it: fast food, any customer service jobs, retail jobs, service workers, drivers.... all such jobs would be illegal for any registered sex offender to hold, which puts an incredible burden on those who are just trying to make a living and oftentimes, support a family. What type of job would you allow them to have, Sen. Cheek ? Contact your legislators !</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-68237544395536768742010-05-24T01:00:00.003-04:002010-05-24T01:11:59.431-04:00Veteran Denied Job After Background Check Mistakes Him for Sex Offender<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-story-veteran-background-check-mistake-051410,0,2256034.story">fox4kc.com</a>: Veteran Denied Job After Company Makes Background Check Mistake.<br /><br />Kansas City - A metro veteran needed a job to help pay some bills and get back on his feet, but he says the opportunity to work at the Schlitterbahn water park in Kansas City, Kansas, was taken away from him after he was<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> falsely accused of being a sex offender.</span><br /><br />Christopher Michael Reynolds says that he was supposed to start at the water park on May 4th, but when he showed up, officials told him to leave after he was informed that he was a registered sex offender.<br /><br />According to ADP, the company that conducts background checks for Schlitterbahn, Christopher Reynolds was convicted of sexual battery in Bexar, Indiana, on March 11, 2007.<br /><br />But there is a big problem with the company's background check. "When this happened, I was in Iraq, serving in the Army National Guard," said Reynolds. Reynolds has a solid alibi with his military records, and the more he investigated, the more Reynolds learned about ADP's investigation.<br /><br />It was a mistake that Reynolds says has some serious implications.<br /><br />"I was really relying on this job to get some stuff paid off, to get back on my feet," said Reynolds, who has been out of work for months and is now living at a homeless shelter. "I came home for medical issues for PTSD and depression and have been seeing a doctor for that. When I found out I had this job, I was excited, and when I found out I lost it, I was kind of down again."<br /><br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.fox4kc.com/videobeta/ffdaeeeb-be98-4102-a448-08b8b5cfafab/News/Mistaken-Identity-Costs-Man-Job"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 115px; height: 18px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/SvH9yr_f2xI/AAAAAAAAA7o/9Jh25Fa19T0/s200/Watch_Video.bmp" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Obviously, this is a terrible thing to happen to this man. But this is what is also happening to hundreds of thousands of people across the country as a result of these sex offender registries. They are being banished from society and barred from holding nearly any job. The Courts and legislators need to be told that these sex offender registries are resulting in economic and social obstacles and burdens for all those who are trapped on these registries. They are punitive - no question about it.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-21216643211271342682010-05-21T17:53:00.004-04:002010-05-21T18:00:49.757-04:00OH: City Tells Sex Offenders to Move Out, Offenders Will Fight Back<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.10tv.com/live/content/crimetracker10/stories/2010/05/21/story-pataskala-sex-offender-move-out-orders.html?sid=102">10tv.com(OH)</a>: Pataskala Tells Sex Offenders To Move Out.<br /><br />Pataskala, Ohio — By law, convicted sex offenders cannot live near schools, playgrounds and daycare and, on Friday, Pataskala city officials were making sure they got the message.<br /><br />The city's law director knocked on the doors of sex offenders living within 1,000 feet of restricted places, telling them that they must move or face charges, 10TV's Kevin Landers reported.<br /><br />The law went into effect four years ago and some of the city's sex offenders have been in violation for years.<br />The notices did not go out until a resident did some digging, Landers reported.<br /><br />The wife of Ira Hinkle said the city is making a mistake in forcing them to move. Hinkle, 50, was convicted of sexual battery and gross sexual imposition. "I don't think it's fair he's done his time," she said.<br /><br />The wife of Stephen Boyd called the requirement is "stupid." Boyd, 43, is listed a Tier II sex offender, convicted of gross sexual imposition, Landers reported.<br /><br />Many who received the notices <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">said they have no plans to move, and said the city will have to fight them</span> in court to enforce the move out order, Landers reported.<br /><br />A plan to reclassify some sex offenders and make them register their addresses even though their original sentence did not require it, has prompted a challenge to the Ohio Supreme Court.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Great for them! We support anyone who actively fights these abhorrent and draconian laws. They should fight this all the way to the Supreme Court ! We encourage all those affected by these laws across the nation to stop being victimized by them and begin fighting back !</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-61482295088518095992010-05-21T13:39:00.002-04:002010-05-21T13:52:23.557-04:00A Peak Inside Ohio vs. Bodyke Case?<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://briefcase8.com/2010/05/20/a-peak-inside-bodyke/">briefcase8.com</a>: A peak inside Bodyke?<br /><a href="http://www.dailycourt.com/articles/index/id/6535">dailycourt.com</a>: Harsher violation at center of arguments before state high court.<br /><br />I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that the Ohio Supreme Court still hasn’t come down with its decision in <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/">State v. Bodyke</a>, the case challenging the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act, despite having held oral argument on the case back in November. Oral argument in another case last week,<a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/ohio-vs-richey-ohio-supreme-court-challenge-oral-arguments/"> State v. Richey</a>, brought some of those issues back up again, and perhaps gave a glimpse of the various justices’ thinking.<br /><br />Richey pled no contest to sexual imposition, a third degree misdemeanor, back in 2006. Two years later, Richey found himself reclassified as a Tier I sex offender under the AWA, and asked that his plea be vacated.<br /><br />Most of the attacks on AWA has centered on the due process and ex post facto problems in changing the rules after the game’s been played: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">people who’d not been subject to any registration requirements, or had completed them, now found themselves subject to new requirements</span>. There’s another argument, though, based on the provision in the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">US Constitution which prohibits a state from enacting legislation which “impairs the obligations of a contract”:</span> A plea bargain is a contract between the parties, and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">additional terms can’t be imposed after the contract is entered into</span>. Richey went a little further and argued that he could not have made a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” guilty plea if the legislature could subsequently amend the law to impose new and more dire consequences upon that plea.<br /><br />There may be some basis for that argument; I know of one case where a pre-AWA plea was entered into with the express stipulation that the defendant would not be classified as a sex offender. Unfortunately, Richey’s case doesn’t present nearly as solid a basis for that claim: he was classified as a sex offender under the pre-AWA law. Justice O’Connor bailed out Richey’s lawyer in oral argument by suggesting that his best argument was not that AWA lengthened Richey’s reporting requirements, but that it dramatically increased the penalty for failing to registration: under the old law, such failure was the same degree as the underlying crime, which here was a third-degree misdemeanor. Under the AWA, failing to register is at least a fourth-degree felony.<br /><br />O’Connor’s comment is interesting for another reason. Justice O’Donnell argued that the trial judge was under no obligation to advise Richey of anything regarding registration as a sex offender, since registration is regarded as “remedial,” not punitive. In fact, that argument has been the lynchpin for upholding past sex offender laws, in both the Ohio and US Supreme Courts: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> you don’t get into the due process and ex post facto arguments if you’re talking about a civil, not criminal, matter.</span><br /><br />Of course,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the argument that prohibiting somebody from living where they want, requiring them to show up at the sheriff’s office every now and then and putting them in prison if they don’t, and putting their pictures up on the Internet and declaring them pariahs isn’t “punitive” has become increasingly tenu0us</span>. Everybody bought the first time the Ohio Supreme Court looked at sex offender laws in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/1998/1998-ohio-291.pdf">State v. Cook</a> in 1998, but by the time the Court examined the immediate precursor to AWA a decade later in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-4824.pdf">State v. Ferguson</a>, three justices — Lanzinger, Lundberg Stratton, and Pfeifer — had jumped off the “it’s only remedial” boat. Put O’Connor in that camp, and you’ve got the four votes to limit AWA to prospective application.<br /><br />There’s another card in play here: the US Supreme Court’s decision two months in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-651.pdf">Padilla v. Kentucky</a> (discussed here), where the Court held that a lawyer may have rendered ineffective assistance by telling his client that there would be no immigration consequences to a guilty plea, when in fact it resulted in deportation proceedings against the client. It’s not a perfect fit — the voluntary nature of the plea is at issue in Richey, while Padilla concerns ineffective assistance of counsel — but there’s room for arguing some overlap, as Justice Lundberg Stratton brought up. Deportation is unquestionably a civil proceeding, and although Ohio has a law which specifically requires a non-citizen to be advised there might be immigration consequences following a plea, many states do not, and in the absence of such a law those consequences are deemed “collateral,” and do not have to be part of the plea colloquy. Yet the civil nature of the proceedings and their collateral status did not deter the Padilla court from concluding that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the defendant had to be properly advised of them. </span><br /><br />What’s more, the Padilla opinion noted that the immigration consequences could be far more severe than those of the underlying conviction, an argument which applies with equal force to Richey’s situation, as noted by Justice Lanzinger: the requirement registering as a sex offender for the next fifteen years, and facing imprisonment for 6 to 18 months if he doesn’t, is much more significant than the 60 days he served in jail for the sexual imposition.<br /><br />As I said, Richey’s case isn’t the best set of facts for this argument, and ordinarily I wouldn’t want to predict the outcome. But I think there’s a decent chance of the whole case being mooted. As Justice O’Connor pointed out in the first minute of oral argument,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> if Bodyke holds that AWA can’t be applied retroactively, that takes care of Richey’s problem.</span> Given some of the comments in Richey, that might just happen.<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />It was unclear at the conclusion of Wednesday, May 12th's arguments before the Ohio Supreme Court which attorney gained more ground on the issue of whether<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the state's sex-offender registration statute unfairly burdens a class of previously convicted violators.</span><br /><br />A staff attorney with the Franklin County public defender's office characterized the rules that became effective after enactment of Senate Bill 10, commonly referred to as the Adam Walsh Act, as similar to an individual ordering a sandwich at a food counter for one price only to have the price changed when the cashier accepts his money. The cashier acknowledges having changed the price and the individual who placed the order is left thinking, "that's not what I bargained for," John Keeling told justices.<br /><br />The attorney explained his client, Aaron Richey, neither knowingly nor intelligently entered a no-contest plea on a misdemeanor count of sexual imposition in 2006, as Richey had no way of knowing the Ohio General Assembly would enact Adam Walsh and stipulate that a registration violation on Richey's part would amount to a fourth-degree felony offense.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Effective Jan. 1, 2008, SB 10 replaced the state's existing sex-offender classification scheme with a new and more restrictive set of registration requirements, and applied the new requirements not only to people convicted of sex crimes after Jan. 1, 2008, but also to all prior sex offenders who were still serving prison terms or still subject to registration requirements under the former version of the law</span>, a summary provided by the court detailed.<br /><br />The Columbus man previously had entered a plea of no contest to the sexual imposition charge in September 2006, summary continued. He was advised by the court at the time that it could result in his being sentenced to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500, and that under Ohio's then-current sex-offender law, he also could be required to register as a sexually oriented offender with the sheriff in his county of residence once a year for 10 years after completing his jail term.<br /><br />Additionally, the court advised Richey that noncompliance with the registration requirements would subject him to the criminal penalties applicable to a third-degree misdemeanor.<br /><br />He affirmed his plea of no contest, was convicted and sentenced to 60 days in jail and a $500 fine, and signed written forms that accurately informed him about his post-release registration obligations, summary continued.<br /><br />Subsequent to enactment of Adam Walsh, Richey received notification that, under the provisions of the new law, he would be subject to annual registration for 15 years rather than 10 years, and that, rather than being punishable as a misdemeanor, any violation of the new registration requirements would be punishable as a fourth-degree felony.<br /><br />The man filed a motion in the Franklin County Municipal Court seeking to reopen his case, withdraw his plea of no contest and undergo a new trial on the 2006 sexual imposition charge, summary provided. The municipal court denied his motion, prompting his appeal to the 10th District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's decision on the basis Richey had not demonstrated that retroactive application of the increased registration requirements and more severe penalties for failure to register constituted a "manifest injustice" that would entitle him to withdraw his no contest plea.<br /><br />Richey sought and was granted Supreme Court review of the 10th District's ruling.<br />The case is <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/ohio-vs-richey-ohio-supreme-court-challenge-oral-arguments/">State v. Richey, case No. 2009-1423.</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-49219122016689137172010-05-21T01:57:00.007-04:002010-05-21T02:55:32.166-04:00Ohio vs. Richey: Ohio Supreme Court Challenge - Oral Arguments<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2009&number=1423&myPage=searchbypartyname.asp">State of Ohio v. Aaron K. Richey, Case no. 2009-1423</a><br />Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments<br />from 10th District Court of Appeals (Franklin County)<br /><br />This is yet another new challenge of Ohio's Senate Bill 10 (Adam Walsh Act,Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act) law which violates constitutional rights of offenders who committed offenses before the implementation of this law.<br /><br />In this case, Richey pled no contest to sexual imposition, a third degree misdemeanor, back in 2006. Two years later, Richey found himself reclassified as a Tier I sex offender under the AWA, and asked that his plea be vacated.<br /><br />This is a separate argument to the other constitutional challenges brought before the Ohio Supreme Court. It is based on the provision in the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">US Constitution which prohibits a state from enacting legislation which “impairs the obligations of a contract”</span>: A plea bargain is a contract between the parties, and additional terms can’t be imposed after the contract is entered into. The Richey argument went a little further and argued that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">he could not have made a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” guilty plea if the legislature could subsequently amend the law to impose new and more dire consequences upon that plea.</span><br /></span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/multimedia/media.cfm?file_id=125552&"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 50px; height: 50px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/SvyOiSstUjI/AAAAAAAAA8A/ODevEjiv7yQ/s200/audio_icon.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-size:85%;" >Listen to audio of oral arguments which were held on May 12, 2010. Or <a href="http://drop.io/richeyohio">download MP3 here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Summary:</span> Two years after he entered into a plea agreement, Richey was reclassified under Senate Bill 10 from the lowest Tier 3 into the highest risk Tier 1, and his mandatory registration was extended from a ten-year period to a lifetime registration requirement. <br /><br />The Justices seem unable to understand that the simple requirement of lifetime registration is punitive in and of itself. Try to imagine yourself in this position. You entered into a plea agreement with the explanation and understanding that you would be required to register with law enforcement for a period of ten years. Years later, legislation is passed which re-classifies you from lowest risk tier (1) to the highest risk tier (3) and you are then given a mandate to register four times each year for the rest of your life. If you fail to do so even once, you face years of imprisonment.<br /><br />This case argues that Richey was not informed of the potential of this drastic change in punishment associated with his plea agreement. Even if he were informed of this potential, increasing his punishment after the plea agreement is unconstitutional as Ex Post Facto (retroactive) laws are a violation of the U.S. Constitution.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-40380538740258506892010-05-20T17:52:00.004-04:002010-05-20T18:56:14.606-04:00Ohio Supreme Court Decision: Ohio v. Clayborn<span style="font-size:85%;">State v. Clayborn, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2123.pdf">Slip Opinion (PDF)</a> No. 2010-Ohio-2123<br />No. 2009-0971 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — <a href="http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/PIO/summaries/2010/0520/090971.asp">Decided May 20, 2010</a><br /><a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/media_archives/supreme_court/media.cfm?file_id=124357&">Watch Oral Arguments in this case.</a><br /><br />LUNDBERG STRATTON, J.:<br />Today this court must decide whether an appeal of an R.C. Chapter 2950 sexual-offender classification is an appeal of a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">criminal matter</span> that must be filed within 30 days after judgment in the case is entered, <span style="font-weight: bold;">or</span> whether it is a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">civil matter</span> for which the 30-day deadline is tolled until the defendant has been served with a copy of the judgment entry. See App.R. 4(A). Because we hold that an appeal of a R.C. Chapter 2950 sex-offender classification is governed by the time within which the defendant may appeal the criminal judgment (conviction and sentence), we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals, but for reasons different from those of the court of appeals.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Thus far, this court has not yet addressed whether S.B. 10 is punitive or remedial</span>, but our holdings in Cook, Wilson, and Ferguson do not turn the sex offender classification proceedings in the underlying criminal case, which has a criminal case number, into a civil case. While sex-offender-classification proceedings are civil in nature and require a civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we hold that an appeal from a sexual offender classification is a civil matter within the context of a criminal case.</span> Therefore, although the court reviews the classification matter on civil standards, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the appeal requirements applicable to criminal cases nonetheless apply.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion</span><br />Accordingly, we hold that an appeal of an R.C. Chapter 2950 sexual-offender classification<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> is an appeal in a criminal matter</span> that must be filed pursuant to App.R. 4(A) within 30 days after judgment is entered. Having passed the appeal time in this case, Clayborn may file a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A), which the court of appeals may consider under the standards that exist for accepting delayed appeals. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals but for reasons different from those of the appellate court. We note again that the defendant may seek relief through a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A).<br /><br />Judgment affirmed.<br />O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, and CUPP, JJ., concur.<br />PFEIFER and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in judgment only.<br />BROWN, C.J., not participating.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The issue in Clayborn was simply the amount of time in which an offender who is classified under the Adam Walsh Act has to appeal. Appellate Rule 4 states that in a criminal case, a party has 30 days after entry of judgment to appeal. But in a civil case, a party has up to 30 days after being served with notice of the entry of judgment. In other words, in a civil case if the clerk fails to serve notice of the judgment under Civ.R. 58(B), the appeal time is extended, but in a civil case it’s not. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">The Court held that sex offender classifications under the Adam Walsh Act can only be appealed under the more stringent criminal rule</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, not the more lenient civil rule. See next post for analysis: </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/ohio-supreme-court-tips-hand-on-sex-offender-classification-ruling/">Ohio Supreme Court Tips Hand on Sex Offender Classification Ruling?</a><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-61546210411754542962010-05-20T17:35:00.002-04:002010-05-20T17:48:36.412-04:00Ohio Supreme Court Tips Hand on Sex Offender Classification Ruling?<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.fssp-law.com/index.php/2010/05/20/ohio-supreme-court-tips-hand-on-sex-offender-classification-law/">fssp-law.com</a>: Ohio Supreme Court Tips Hand on Sex Offender Classification Law?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">While this posting comes from a commercial attorney web site, it provides very interesting information we had not previously seen.</span><br /></span><p style=""><span style="font-size:85%;">Today’s ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-2123.pdf"><em>State v. Clayborn,</em> 2010-Ohio-2123 [PDF]</a> may offer some insight into whether the Court will strike down the Adam Walsh Act, which reclassified sex offenders and in many cases extended indefinitely their reporting or registration requirements.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The issue in <em>Clayborn</em> was simply the amount of time in which an offender who is classified under the Adam Walsh Act has to appeal. Appellate Rule 4 states that in a criminal case, a party has 30 days after entry of judgment to appeal. But in a civil case, a party has up to 30 days <em>after being served with notice </em>of the entry of judgment. In other words, in a civil case if the clerk fails to serve notice of the judgment under Civ.R. 58(B), the appeal time is extended, but in a civil case it’s not.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> The Court held that sex offender classifications under the Adam Walsh Act can only be appealed under the more stringent criminal rule, not the more lenient civil rule.</span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">What does this have to do with the validity of the Act itself? Good question. The Adam Walsh Act, also known as R.C. Chapter 2950, required the state to re-classify all existing sex offenders into one of three new tiers. The reporting requirements for each tier were significantly more stringent than the prior reporting requirements. For example, an offender who had been convicted of a sexual battery may have been previously classified as a sexual offender and ordered to register annually for ten years. Under the Adam Walsh Act, that person (so long as they were still within that ten-year notification period) would be classified as a Tier III offender and would have to register every 90 days for life.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Many offenders have challenged the law as unconstitutional. </span> A variety of theories are usually trotted out, including the separation of powers doctrine, equal protection, double jeopardy, and plea-bargain-as-contract. Particularly relevant here, though, is that the petitioners usually argue that the Adam Walsh Act violates the prohibition on retroactive laws in the Ohio Constitution (Article II, Section 28) or the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Sections 9-10).</span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">To my knowledge, all Ohio appellate courts have rejected these arguments to date. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(actually, at least two appellate courts in Ohio have ruled Ohio Senate Bill 10 to be unconstitutional. See </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/ohio-state-v-spangler/">Ohio vs. Spangler</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> and </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/ohio-v-ettenger-11th-circuit-court-of-appeals/">Ohio vs. Ettenger</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> but most courts have indeed rejected challenges...)</span><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">They tend to rely on the 1998 Ohio Supreme Court case of </span><em><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">State v. Cook</span> </em>(83 Ohio St.3d 404), in which the Court approved the sex offender classification law enacted in 1997, known as Megan’s Law. The <em>Cook</em> Court held, among other things,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> that the sex offender law was a “merely remedial” law, and not a “substantive” law.</span> The Court explained that “the General Assembly’s purpose behind R.C. Chapter 2950 is to promote public safety and bolster the public’s confidence in Ohio’s criminal and mental health systems,” and further found that “[t]he statute is absolutely devoid of any language indicating an intent to punish.” As directly and bluntly as possible, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the Court said that “R.C. Chapter 2950, on its face, clearly is not punitive.” </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“Merely remedial” and “not punitive” are other ways of saying “civil, not criminal.”</span> In other words, the <em>Cook</em> Court’s approval of the classification system is based on a finding that the sex offender registration <em>was a civil statute, not a criminal statute</em>. </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">The significance of the <em>Clayborn</em> holding should be evident: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the Court has now said, at least for purposes of protecting appellate rights, that the Adam Walsh Act must be treated as a criminal statute, not a civil statute.</span> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:85%;">Challenges to the Adam Walsh Act are pending before the Court right now. In November, for example, the Court heard argument in <em>In re: Darian J. Smith</em>, in which the petitioner contested the validity of the Adam Walsh Act on ex post facto and retroactivity grounds (<a href="http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2008&number=1624&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp">docket available here</a>). The decision in <em>Clayton</em> may indicate a tendency to strike down the Adam Walsh Act, or at least its retroactive application.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The four consolidated cases pending before the Ohio Supreme Court </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(which includes Darian J. Smith vs. Ohio) </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">can be found </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/ohio-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/">here.</a><br /></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-92065451680001318682010-05-20T02:13:00.002-04:002010-05-20T02:35:34.066-04:00How Sex Offender Registries Ruin the Lives of Teenagers<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:85%;" >Two news reports of how draconian sex offender laws have ruined the lives of two young teenagers:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/oklahoma.teen.sex.offender/">CNN.com</a>: <span style="font-weight: bold;">No longer a registered sex offender, but the stigma remains.</span><br /><br />Stilwell, Oklahoma (CNN) -- As a teenager, Ricky Blackman carried an Oklahoma driver's license with the words "sex offender" stamped in red below his picture. His crime? Having sex with a 13-year-old girl when he was 16. The offense occurred when he lived in Iowa, and the label followed him to Oklahoma. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Blackman pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse for having sex with the 13-year-old. The age of consent in Iowa is 14.</span><br /><span style=";font-size:85%;" ><br />As a Tier 3 offender on Oklahoma's sex offender registry, Blackman <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">could not attend high school, visit the town library, or go to his younger brother's football games</span>. But the label did more than limit where Blackman could go. It <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">transformed him from an outgoing, sociable jock into an introvert who has trouble trusting people</span>, his mother says.<br /><br />Taking into account the circumstances of the case, an Iowa judge accepted Blackman's plea and ordered that his record be expunged if he successfully completed probation and sex offender treatment. At that time, his name would be removed from Iowa's sex offender registry.<br /><br />After his conviction, Blackman's family moved to Oklahoma to get a fresh start. He finished his probation and sex offender treatment, and his record in Iowa was expunged in October 2008, according to court documents.<br /><br />But the action did not carry over to Oklahoma, where Blackman <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">continued to be listed on that state's sex offender registry</span>. The stigma followed him to his new home and the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">harassment continued</span>, the family said.<br /><br />A neighbor who found out he was on the registry videotaped him when he went outside, Blackman said. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">His picture and address were posted on a vigilante Web site</span>, and a gas station attendant refused to sell him cigarettes, one time taking his license and throwing it across the store.<br /><br />To comply with state residency restrictions that prevent registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care center, the family moved onto a small plot of land in the rural southeastern Oklahoma community of Stilwell, population 3,500.<br /><br />Having a son on the registry also made a lasting impression on his mother. She now devotes most of her time to reforming sex offender legislation --specifically, the registry -- as chief operating officer of Sex Offender Solutions And Education Network.<br /><br />Blackman's story comes at a time of increased push-back against sex offender policies that some see as overly broad. Many states have been resisting toughening their sex offender policies. Only one state, Ohio, has complied with the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which lists sex offenders as young as 14 on a uniform registry.<br /><br />In Georgia, the Southern Center for Human Rights is challenging a state law prohibiting sex offenders from living and working within 1,000 feet of a school, church or day care. Georgia's laws go so far as to ban sex offenders from living near bus stops. The case is still pending.<br /><br />Last summer, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against Miami-Dade County, alleging the county's 2,500-foot residency restriction interfered with Florida's ability to monitor and supervise released offenders. With nowhere to live, dozens of homeless sex offenders clustered under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2009.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Blackman was just trying to graduate from high school. He attempted to enroll but was told that he was considered a danger to the rest of the students. He couldn't take GED classes at the vocational school in town because of an on-campus day care center.<br /><br />His mother persuaded the school board to provide him with a tutor and private classes at the local police department, under the supervision of an officer.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Finding a job presented its own challenges. He says he was turned down by Wal-Mart, McDonald's and another fast food outlet that told him he was considered a liability</span>. He spent most days at home learning to build Web sites and helping his mother and brother.<br /><br />Due in large part to the efforts of his mother, the Oklahoma Legislature last year passed the law that makes expungements of certain sex offenses in other jurisdictions applicable in Oklahoma.<br /><br />"I know what I did was wrong and I deserved to be punished for it. But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">this destroyed my life</span>. Took it away from me," he said. "You never forget about it. I know I'm off the registry but it's taking a long time for it to settle in."<br /><br />In November, Blackman received a letter from the Oklahoma Board of Probation and Parole. It said he had been removed from the state's sex offender registry, where he had been designated the highest level of risk possible.<br /><br />His return to a "normal" life has been slow. He still is reluctant to go to his brother's football games, and the thought of going to places where children convene makes him nervous.<br /><br />"I know I'm off the registry but others may not know," he said. "I don't want to go somewhere and cause a scene 'cause people may not know that I'm allowed to be there and get upset."<br />---------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6628571.html">Chron.com(TX)</a>: <span style="font-weight: bold;">A long wait to get past crime - Kids as young as age 10 can be registered as sex offenders, a label lasting a decade.</span><br /><br />Samantha Portwood is marking the days on her calendar until Sept. 30. That's the day her 24-year-old son's name and picture is expected to be removed from the state's sex offender registry.<br /><br />For the past decade, her son Dale <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">has lived under public scrutiny for a crime he committed when he was 12</span>. He inappropriately touched a 7-year-old girl at his baby sitter's house and was charged with aggravated sexual assault. After completing two years of therapy and probation, he had to register as a sex offender, which shocked his parents.<br /><br />“It frustrates me,” said Portwood, of Pinehurst in Montgomery County. “He was 12 years old when it happened. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">He's not a threat to society</span>.”<br /><br />Her son isn't alone. About <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">3,600 people on the state's registry were added as juveniles</span>, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which administers the registry. Eleven were 10 years old when they registered.<br /><br />The registry has 26 juveniles who are currently 13 to 16 years old, according to state records. Of the more than 340 juvenile registrants who live in Harris County, three are currently 16 years old, records show.<br /><br />Many people are not aware that juveniles can be registered as sex offenders in Texas. State legislators made registration mandatory for adults and juveniles when they established the sex offender registry in 1991. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Texas does not have a minimum age for juvenile registration</span>, but the minimum age for prosecution is 10.<br /><br />Juvenile registration has been debated by lawmakers, child advocates and crime victim proponents for the past decade. Those who support it contend the community has a right to know about dangerous sex offenders — adult or juvenile. Critics argue that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the negative consequences on juveniles and their families far outweigh any benefits to the community. No research suggests registration makes communities safer</span>, they said.<br /><br />Access to court records for juveniles with delinquent backgrounds are generally restricted to protect them from shame and to give them a fresh start. But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">anyone can access the state's online sex offender registry and see the juvenile's criminal charge</span>. The registry, which went online in 1997, also makes available the juvenile's address, where he attends schools and annual mug shots.<br /><br />“I feel like this is totally inconsistent with the way we as a society have determined is the right way to deal with juvenile behavior,” said Theresa Tod, director of the Texas Network of Youth Services. “To protect juveniles from public derision is our job.”<br /><br />Unlike adult sex offenders who must register for life, juvenile sex offenders are required to register for 10 years after they leave the juvenile system. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The vast majority of juvenile sex offenses are against other children, and the juvenile generally knows the victim</span>, said juvenile justice experts.<br /><br />In some cases, juvenile sex offenders have safety zone stipulations as part of their probation and<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> can't go to certain places, such as parks or community centers. The restrictions can limit their social activities and job opportunities, which are key to rehabilitation</span>, McLaughlin said.<br /><br />Allison Taylor, executive director of the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment, said<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“Anytime you destabilize adults or juveniles, you increase the risk of recidivism”</span> . “That is a public concern.”<br /><br />Portwood has spent 10 years trying to protect her son from being bullied and ostracized. She said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">she helplessly watched as Dale's self-esteem diminished</span>. She believes her once mild-mannered son intentionally misbehaved in school so he would be disciplined and not have to attend.<br /><br />In high school, classmates called him a rapist and child molester behind his back, she said. He eventually dropped out in 10th grade. “He came to me and said, ‘Mom, I can't take it anymore,'” she said. “He said, ‘Do people look at me and think I'm a monster?' What do you tell him?”<br /><br />Portwood said she knows her son's actions were morally wrong but believes it <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">didn't merit him being labeled a sex offender.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Failure to report a change of address, a registry rule, landed him in prison last year</span>. He was released on parole in March and is living outside of Austin, trying to get his life back on track.<br /><br />Dale, who did not want his last name used to protect his identity, said he did not realize at 12 what he did was wrong. He said he never was a sexual predator and<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> feels like registration robbed him of his childhood because his life was filled with constant embarrassment.</span><br /><br />As many as 32 states require juvenile registration, and as many as 20 states have special juvenile procedures that can terminate a juvenile's duty to register, according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the U.S. Justice Department.<br /><br />But <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">judicial discretion</span>, the one element that makes juvenile registration palatable for some critics, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">would be stripped under the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006</span>. The law sets new standards for registering sex offenders. All states were required to comply with the act by this year. Many states, however, have objected to a requirement for all juveniles 14 and older who have committed aggravated sexual assaults to register for 25 years. The U.S. attorney general recently issued all states a one-year extension for compliance.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-75789270157142924472010-05-20T01:56:00.004-04:002010-05-20T02:09:55.167-04:00SD Governor Signs Bill to Create Tiered Sex Offender List<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ksfy.com/news/local/89295137.html#commentbox">ksfy.com</a>: Governor Signs Bill to Create Tiered Sex Offender List.<br /><a href="http://www.kcautv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12215291">kcautv.com</a>: SD gov. signs bill changing sex offender registry.<br /><br />Pierre, S.D. (AP) - A bill allowing some people to get their names removed from the state sex offender registry has been signed by South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds.<br /><br />The measure creates three levels of sex crimes. Those convicted of the most serious sex offenses, including crimes against children, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">could never get off the offender list</span>. Those convicted of midlevel sex crimes could ask to be removed after 25 years. And those convicted of less serious crimes, such as statutory rape when the offender is no older than 21, could seek to be removed from the list after 10 years.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Apparently, as within the Adam Walsh Act, there is no judicial review permitted in determining an individual's tier level. Categorizing past offenders into more stringent registration tiers based on their offense alone - after their they have completed their sentences - violates due process provisions of the Constitution.</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Furthermore, prohibiting a group of citizens from ever being able to petition their way off these lists only creates a sub-class of people who have nothing to live for and no reason to be law abiding, which will only put public safety at greater risk.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-51318658533364504962010-05-19T14:11:00.002-04:002010-05-19T14:20:27.029-04:00DE and FL "Substantially Comply" with Adam Walsh Act<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.doverpost.com/newsnow/x1406500597/Feds-recognize-Delawares-work-to-go-after-child-predators">doverpost.com</a>: Feds recognize Delaware's work to go after child predators (and sex offenders).<br /><a href="http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/united_states/florida-enhances-sex-offender-registration-and-notification-31241.html">thegovmonitor.com</a> : Florida Enhances Sex Offender Registration And Notification.<br /><br />Wilmington- <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Delaware has become just the second state in the country to achieve compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act. (<span style="font-style: italic;">after Ohio</span>).</span><br /><br />The U.S. Department of Justice recently determined that Delaware has substantially implemented the provisions of the sex offender registration and notification provisions of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Act aligns sex offender registry standards across the states and asks states to place the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">burden </span> on convicted sex offenders.<br /><br />Under current federal rules, states that fail to substantially implement these provisions by July 26 stand to lose 10 percent of their annual federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding.<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Florida is third state to implement the Adam Walsh Act, substantially enforce Sex Offender Registration and Notification procedures.</span><br /><br />Governor Charlie Crist and Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Gerald Bailey today announced that Florida is the third state to implement the Adam Walsh Act. The Act provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States.<br /><br />On May 14, the U.S. Department of Justice recognized Florida as having reached substantial implementation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The act aligns sex offender registry standards across the states and tightens requirements for offender registration and notification. Under current federal rules, states that fail to substantially implement these provisions by July 26, 2010 stand to lose 10 percent of their annual federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding. Ohio and Delaware are the only other two states to implement the act to date.<br /><br />As part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Florida implemented several changes to the registry requirements including:<br /><br /> * <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">increased the number of times per year that sexual offenders and predators must register</span> in person with their local sheriff’s office;<br /><br /> * Required all registered sexual offenders and predators to<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> register any e-mail or instant message address they may use prior to using it</span>;<br /><br /> *<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Required juvenile sexual offenders to register</span> if adjudicated of certain crimes committed after July 1, 2007;<br /><br /> *<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Increased the minimum length of registration for sexual offenders</span> while <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">removing the ability for sexual predators to petition the court for removal</span> from registration requirements; and<br /><br /> * Increased sexual offender/predator notification to the public, including e-mail notifications made available to citizens. To date, more than two million notifications have been sent out.<br /><br />The registry currently houses data on more than 54,000 registered sex offenders and predators.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-35841311391914257072010-05-19T14:03:00.003-04:002010-05-19T14:08:27.459-04:00MI: Dramatic Increase in Number of Homeless Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://michiganmessenger.com/37992/state-reports-dramatic-increase-in-number-of-self-reported-homeless-sex-offenders">michiganmessenger.com</a>: State reports dramatic increase in number of self-reported homeless sex offenders.<br /></span><p style=""><span style="font-size:85%;">The Michigan State Police say that the number of people required to register on the sex offender registry claiming to be<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> homeless has jumped 62 percent since February. </span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"> This, police say, is the result of a <a href="http://michiganmessenger.com/34375/appeals-court-says-homeless-sex-offenders-not-obligated-to-register">Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in February</a> which said homeless sex offenders were not required to register. The Appeals Court noted that the law discussed residence, and by definition, homeless offenders do not have one.<br /><br />The Grand Rapids Press <a href="http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/05/since_court_ruled_homeless_sex.html">report</a> goes on to note that 270 sex offenders have claimed homelessness since the ruling. The register had <a href="http://michiganmessenger.com/34538/juveniles-well-represented-on-mich-sex-offender-registry">over 45,000 people</a> on it as of November 2009. Over 3,500 of them are juveniles.<br /><br /><a href="http://michiganmessenger.com/37294/bill-would-require-registration-of-homeless-sex-offenders">Legislation</a> to address homelessness and sex offender registry has passed the state Senate (see related post: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/mi-senator-goes-after-homeless-sex-offenders/">MI Senator Goes After Homeless Sex Offenders</a>)</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-7778785323636456902010-05-18T18:26:00.002-04:002010-05-18T18:31:09.467-04:00Sexual Offender Shenanigans<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593102,00.html">Foxnews.com</a>:Sexual Offender Shenanigans.<br /><br />In a <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court/">7-2 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld</a> the power of the federal government to detain dangerous sexual offenders <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">even after their prison terms are up.</span><br /><br />The mechanism that federal prosecutors use is called <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">civil commitment </span>— <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">placing sexual offenders in locked psychiatric units against their will, until they are considered safe. </span>Many states already use civil commitment as an “add-on” to hold sex offenders longer than jails can.<br /><br />On the surface, this way of dealing with sexual offenders may seem wise. After all, who wants to release dangerous sex criminals to the streets? But I worry about the shell game being played here between the criminal justice system and the medical system.<br /><br />The theory behind the federal law is that sexual offenders are so sick that they can’t be released to the streets — maybe, ever — because they can’t control their behavior. And this implies that the offenders may well have qualified for verdicts of not criminally responsible (i.e. “not guilty by reason of insanity”) when they were tried. They should have been routed to locked psychiatric units to begin with, not sent to prison and then sent off to another kind of incarceration after they had done their time.<br /><br />In most states one of the “prongs” of being found not criminally responsible (by reason of mental illness) is the inability to conform one’s behavior to the requirements of the law. Clearly, that is what federal prosecutors are contending —<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> but only in retrospect — about the sexual offenders they seek to commit</span>: They can’t control themselves and never could. They are turning prisoners over to the secure hospitals that should have held them and tried to heal them from the very beginning (and, probably, for just as long).<br /><br />A beefed-up forensic mental health care system, with the power to enforce outpatient monitoring and medication, is the solution here. That way our society doesn’t find itself in the position of<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> short-circuiting truth and justice in order to protect itself.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The potential for abuse of the federal sexual offender statute is too great. </span>What happens when gang members are deemed too violent to be released after their prison terms are up? What happens when spousal abusers are considered too dangerous to hit the streets? How about those who conspire against the government in any way? <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Will they somehow find themselves not only sentenced to prison, but also later held without criminal trials in mental health units?</span><br /><br />Sound far-fetched? Well, smart, democratic, free societies that hope to stay that way need to see the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">seeds of authoritarianism </span>when they are planted. The federal sex offender law is such a seed.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> It blurs the boundaries between punishment for crimes and enforced psychiatric care for sick people </span>(who can’t control themselves). In so doing, it gives the government the power to lie in court and coerces the mental health care system to cover its backside.<br /><br />Inappropriate government power is best sold to the public when it is said to apply only to the most hated folks among us. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It’s funny (actually, it’s scary), though, how quickly that power could be applied to the rest of us.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-39249834187419677132010-05-18T03:17:00.003-04:002010-05-18T03:25:24.535-04:00CA: Animal Abuse Registry Legislation Under Review<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.kmjnow.com/pages/landing_news?Bill-Would-Treat-Animal-Abusers-Like-Sex=1&blockID=232004&feedID=806">kmjnow.com (CA)</a>: Bill Would Treat Animal Abusers Like Sex Offenders.<br /><br />State lawmakers are considering some interesting legislation this week, including one bill from Senator Dean Florez that would make California the first state in the country to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">treat animal abusers much like sex offenders.</span><br /><br />If passed, his bill would <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">require any individual over 18 years of age convicted of felony animal abuse to register with police.</span><br /><br />An offender's home address, photograph and place of employment would be <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">posted online for a 10-year period after their conviction.</span><br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;font-size:85%;" >This is what you get when you allow your legislators to pass laws such as this which brand sex offenders. It becomes a slippery slope and legally allows for other groups of citizens to be branded similarly.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-68865265748376838162010-05-18T03:08:00.002-04:002010-05-18T03:15:52.086-04:00Sex Offenders Living in Clusters in SoCal<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-sex-offenders-where-they-live,0,7700362.story">ktla.com</a>: Sex Offenders Found Living in Clusters in SoCal.<br /><br />Los Angeles -- A KTLA analysis of the Megan's Law database finds clusters of sex offenders living in some Southern California neighborhoods, while others have virtually none. When we conducted our research last month, we found one zip code in Wilmington -- 90744 -- with more registered sex offenders living in it than any other in the region. One block of Flint Avenue in Wilmington was home to 94 registered sex offenders.<br /><br />Most have done time for victimizing kids. They live in run-down apartments. Thirty of them in this one building, The Harbor Inn, where the manager, who told us his name was Joseph, makes no apologies.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"They have to have somewhere to stay," he told us. "They are human beings."</span><br /><br />Flint Avenue is an industrial area near the port and a refinery. It's not close to homes, schools, or parks.<br />Still, if you took a wrong turn and ended up here, there's no sign to warn you this is a neighborhood full of sexual predators.<br /><br />What we found here is typical. Our research on the Megan's Law database found that the 90744 zip code Wilmington has the most, with 202, followed by a zip code in Lancaster with 157, 137 in a part of Long Beach.... and 118 in a section of Compton.<br /><br />Sex criminals tend to live in poorer parts of town. You'll find none in zip codes in Encino, San Marino, Pacific Palisades, and Newport Beach... and only one in Beverly Hills.<br /><br />The law says they're not supposed to live within 2,000 feet of a school. Some prosecutors think California needs to get tougher on sex offenders by keeping them in prison longer, monitoring them with GPS for life, or forcing them to live farther away from people. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Spitzer">Assistant District Attorney Spitzer</a> thinks confining sex offenders to the high desert might be a good plan. "I don't think it's a laughable idea," he told KTLA.<br /><br />But back on Flint Ave. in Wilmington, there's a different attitude.<br /><br />Joseph, the manager of an apartment building that houses 30 sex offenders, told KTLA, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"People have to open their hearts and forgive."</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-35772023015693364572010-05-18T03:02:00.001-04:002010-05-18T03:06:36.378-04:00IL to Add Tens of Thousands of Names to Sex Offender List<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/mindys.law.sex.2.1697650.html">cbs2chicago.com</a>: Under Measure, No One Convicted Before Registry Took Effect Would Be Able To Skirt Requirement.<br /><br />Springfield, Ill. (CBS) ―The names of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">tens of thousands of sex offenders may soon be added to the state registry.</span> These are offenders who have come off the list or were never put on it because they <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">committed their crimes prior to 1999.</span><br /><br />State Sen. Iris Martinez (D-Chicago.) created the bill. Martinez doesn't think there should be any grandfather clause when it comes to sex offenders.<br /><br />The legislation would require all adult sex offenders to be registered no later than five days after the bill goes into law. The bill -- which was also sponsored by State Rep. Deb Mell -- is now headed to the governor's office. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-48499566348486380252010-05-18T02:54:00.002-04:002010-05-18T03:00:12.448-04:00Penalties for Sex Offenders Out of Step<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-commentary/2010/05/my_view_penalties_for_sex_offe.html">Al.com (AL)</a>: Penalties for sex offenders out of step.<br /><br />At the suggestion of a friend, I recently became a volunteer at the Shiloni Transformational Ministry for Homeless Sex Offenders. Shiloni is a faith-based program in Birmingham founded five years ago by Bill and Barbara Grier <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">to help sex offenders after they get out of prison by providing them a temporary place to live while they try to find a job.</span> The ministry addresses their spiritual and physical needs. All offenders are difficult to help, but sex offenders are more so. Shiloni is the only program of its kind in the entire state.<br /><br />Recently, the Legislature unanimously passed and the governor signed into law a bill affecting where sex offenders may live. Already, under a prior law,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> sex offenders cannot live or work less than 3,000 yards from a college, school or day care center.</span><br /><br />Along with other ill-conceived requirements, the new law says<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> no more than one adult criminal sex offender and one unrelated juvenile sex offender can live in the same house, and only one sex offender may live in an apartment complex within 100 yards of the residence of another sex offender.</span><br /><br />Basically, the thrust and intent of the law are that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sex offenders may not live anywhere.</span><br /><br />However Draconian and unfair it may be, it is easy to pass a law in Alabama affecting sex offenders. I believe that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">if a bill were proposed to brand offenders on the forehead with the letters "SO", it would pass the Legislature unanimously.</span><br /><br />Like other people, I thought I knew all I needed to know about sex offenders: Put them in prison and throw away the key. Case closed.<br /><br />It is not that easy. We think we know what a sex offender is, but we do not. What do a 17-year-old boy having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend, a streaker, and a drunk, naked frat boy rolling around on the front lawn of his fraternity house shouting "Roll Tide" have in common?<br /><br />According to Alabama law, they are all "sex offenders." <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Once arrested and found guilty, they are branded for life.</span><br /><br />The streaker and the drunk frat boy are easily dismissed, but the two teenagers are not. Alabama law holds that a girl under the age of 16 cannot agree to consensual sex with a boy older than she is; therefore, the boy is a rapist and a sex offender.<br /><br />Ridiculous? Think again. I know such a boy in the Shiloni program. Mom and dad get mad, and the boy gets jail.<br /><br />Or, consider "Brad." Brad's father left when he was 1 month old. He was later molested by his half-sister's husband. When he was 14, his mother suddenly died. Brad was alone and an emotional wreck.<br /><br />He then started acting out sexually. He was arrested and sent to the state juvenile detention center at Mt. Meigs, where his life was saved. However, when Brad was released at age 18, he was branded as a sex offender.<br /><br />One person I will never forget was a 53-year-old man who had consensual sex with an underage girl. Having been a missionary and a pastor, he was stricken with guilt at his sin and turned himself in to police. He knew it was wrong in the sight of God.<br /><br />None of his past life's goodness and his deep remorse was taken into consideration at his sentencing. He was given 30 years.<br /><br />When sex offenders are released,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> if they have not found a place to live within three days, they are arrested and put back in jail</span>. This is not morally right. They have served their sentence and committed no additional crime. They are in a catch-22 situation.<br /><br />What we should be concerned about are real sex offenders -- the predators, the pedophiles and the serial rapists who cannot be rehabilitated.<br /><br />The biggest barriers sex offenders face when they are released are finding a place to live and finding a job. The Shiloni ministry helps with these two needs. Providing a place for sex offenders to live is a huge problem because, understandably, no one wants them in his backyard.<br /><br />Without a lot of fanfare, well-intentioned people representing the city, the county and their respective police forces should be able to work together to find an appropriate place for a shelter.<br /><br />Bill and Barbara Grier have put their hearts and souls into helping sex offenders. They have spent endless hours and thousands of their own dollars to sustain their ministry. They are what I call "special people" who have been tapped on the shoulder by God. They need help both in goodwill and in financial support.<br /><br />Shiloni is just one program. There should be more like it.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-29163947009440008782010-05-17T13:47:00.002-04:002010-05-17T13:54:10.172-04:00Sex-Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U.S. High Court<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court-update1-.html">businessweek.com</a>: Sex-Offender Commitment Law Upheld by U.S. High Court.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Unbelievably, SCOTUS ruled today that the US government now has the power to indefinitely imprison its citizens beyond their sentences. This is a dangerous affront to our constitutional rights and gives the federal government virtually unlimited power to imprison anyone beyond their due process sentence for almost any reason.</span><br /><br />The Supreme Court <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">upheld a federal law that allows the civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” people, including those whose federal prison terms have expired.</span><br /><br />The justices, voting 7-2, today ruled that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in enacting the 2006 measure, which affects people already in federal custody.<br /><br />The law, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was challenged by five men held under it. Four of them<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> have completed prison sentences for sex crimes</span>, while the fifth was held incompetent to stand trial on charges of sexually abusing a child. They are being held in a treatment facility in Butner, North Carolina.<br /><br />Before the law’s enactment, the federal government’s civil commitment power covered people in U.S. custody who were found incompetent to stand trial, found not guilty by reason of insanity or determined after conviction to be mentally ill.<br /><br />Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. Thomas said the majority <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“comes perilously close to transforming the necessary and proper clause into a basis for the federal police power that we have always rejected.”</span><br /><br />The case is <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/differing-reports-on-us-v-comstock-hearing/">United States v. Comstock, 08-1224</a>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-48220274666975120542010-05-17T13:36:00.002-04:002010-05-17T13:43:20.879-04:00Adam Walsh Act Changes are a Win for States<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=485308">stateline.org</a>: Adam Walsh Act changes are a win for states.<br /><br />The U.S. Justice Department has proposed <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam-walsh-act-guidelines/">major regulatory changes to the Adam Walsh Act</a>, a 2006 federal law requiring all states to crack down on sex offenders by July or risk losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money.<br /><br />The proposed changes, which were <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-11665.htm">posted in the Federal Register on Friday (May 14)</a> and face a <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam-walsh-act-guidelines/">two-month public comment period</a>, address some of the most controversial provisions of the law, which many states have criticized as cost-prohibitive and overly strict.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=273887">As Stateline has reported</a>, however, many states disagree with key provisions of the law that they see as too strict, including a stipulation that some<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> juvenile sex offenders as young as 14 be placed on public registries</span>. In Delaware, as the <a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100510/NEWS01/5100329">Wilmington News-Journal recently reported</a>, some offenders as young as 9 are listed on the public sex offender Web site. Youth advocates and others have said that posting images and personal information of juveniles can lead to harassment, and that juveniles should not be grouped with more serious, adult criminals. The changes proposed Friday give states the discretion to decide if they want to include juveniles on their registries.<br /><br />Under another proposed change, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sex offenders whose crimes pre-dated the Adam Walsh Act, and who have exited the justice system, would not be forced to abide by its registration requirements</span>. While courts have found the provision constitutional — holding that registration is not a new criminal penalty but a civil, regulatory requirement instead —<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> states have argued that it is overly burdensome to track down and register sex offenders who already have served their time and re-joined the population</span>. The Justice Department recognized that concern, giving states “greater latitude” not to register certain offenders. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> (This does not mean that states will remove retro-activity from their laws, but only that the AWA requirements will allow them to do so if they choose. States like Ohio, which already require past offenders to register would have to change their laws if they choose to remove past offenders from the registries....unlikely in this political climate)</span><br /><br />“It may not be possible for jurisdictions to identify and register all sex offenders who fall within the (Adam Walsh Act) registration categories, particularly where they have left the justice system and merged into the general population long ago,” the new rules say.<br /><br />Only one state — Ohio — has complied with the Adam Walsh Act so far. Several others have asked for a one-year extension to meet the law’s demands. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder already has granted all states a one-year extension, underscoring the difficulty states have had in complying with the law.<br /><br />While there is broad political agreement on the overall goals of the Adam Walsh Act, the changes proposed Friday show that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">states’ concerns are being heard in Washington, D.C. Members of Congress also have acknowledged that they may have overreached with the legislation.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-8663049101179271432010-05-14T14:49:00.008-04:002010-05-14T23:52:48.457-04:00ACTION ALERT: PROPOSED Additional Adam Walsh Act Guidelines<span style="font-size:85%;">It has come to our attention, via <a href="http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2010/05/action-alert-proposed-additional-adam.html">Sexoffenderresearch </a>and <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/05/big-changes-to-the-sex-offender-registration-provisions-of-the-adam-walsh-act-proposed.html">SentencingLaw&Policy</a>, that today the U.S. Department of Justice issued proposed supplemental guidelines modifying several requirements for compliance with SORNA. Many address concerns raised by the states and other stakeholders. They do the following:<br /><br />* Gives jurisdictions discretion to exempt juvenile offenders from public website posting<br />* Provides information concerning the review process for determining that jurisdictions have substantially implemented<br />* Gives jurisdictions discretion to modify the retroactive registration requirement to apply to new felony convictions only<br />* Provides mechanisms for newly recognized tribes to elect whether to become SORNA registration jurisdictions and to implement SORNA<br />* Expands required registration information to include the forms signed by sex offenders acknowledging that they were advised of their registration obligations<br />* Requires jurisdictions to exempt sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers from public website posting<br />* Requires jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance<br />* Clarifies mechanism for inter-jurisdictional information sharing and tracking.<br /><br />They are posted in today’s Federal Register. Interested parties have 60 days to submit comments. Find the document <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-11665.pdf#page=002">here</a>. Or <a href="http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-11665.htm">here</a>. Or <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-14/pdf/2010-11665.pdf">here in PDF format</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Excerpts:</span><br /><br />Overview<br />The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which is title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Public Law 109–248, was enacted on July 27, 2006. SORNA (46 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.) establishes minimum national standards for sex offender registration and notification in the jurisdictions to which it applies. SORNA directs the Attorney General to issue guidelines and regulations to interpret and implement SORNA.<br /><br />Since the publication of the SORNA Guidelines, issues have arisen in SORNA implementation that require that some aspects of the Guidelines be augmented or modified. Consequently, the Department of Justice is proposing these supplemental guidelines, which do the following:<br /><br />(1) Allow jurisdictions, in their discretion, to exempt information concerning sex offenders required to register on the basis of juvenile delinquency adjudications from public Web site posting. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">(allow states to take minors off of the public Internet registry only)</span><br /><br />(2) Require jurisdictions to exempt sex offenders’ e-mail addresses and other Internet identifiers from public Web site posting, pursuant to the KIDS Act, 42 U.S.C. 16915a. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(disallow Internet public registry to post offender's email addresses and Internet identifiers)</span><br /><br />(3) Require jurisdictions to have sex offenders report international travel 21 days in advance of such travel and to submit information concerning such travel to the appropriate Federal agencies and databases. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(to sneak in the proposed International Megan's Law; restricts international travel and monitors such travel)</span><br /><br />(4) Clarify the means to be utilized to ensure consistent inter-jurisdictional information sharing and tracking of sex offenders. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(sharing information between states, and perhaps countries)</span><br /><br />(5) Expand required registration information to include the forms signed by sex offenders acknowledging that they were advised of their registration obligations. <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(this is a legal protection effort by the Feds to protect themselves legally. Some jurisdictions already do this)</span><br /><br />(6) Provide additional information concerning the review process for determining that jurisdictions have substantially implemented the SORNA requirements in their programs and continue to comply with these requirements.<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> (because only one state (Ohio) has "substantially complied")</span><br /><br />(7) Afford jurisdictions greater latitude regarding the registration of sex offenders who have fully exited the justice system but later reenter through a new (non-sex-offense) criminal conviction by providing that jurisdictions may limit such registration to cases in which the new conviction is for a felony.<span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> (allow states to avoid retro-active implementation, but does not forbid it. This seems to allow continued retro-active implementation on anyone already on the registry.)</span><br /><br />(8) Provide, for Indian tribes that are newly recognized by the Federal government following the enactment of SORNA, authorization and time frames for such tribes to elect whether to become SORNA registration jurisdictions and to implement SORNA.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">IV. Retroactive Classes</span><br />SORNA’s requirements apply to all sex offenders, regardless of when they were convicted. See 28 CFR 72.3. However, the SORNA Guidelines state that it </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >will be deemed sufficient for substantial implementation if jurisdictions register sex offenders with pre-SORNA or pre-SORNA implementation sex offense convictions who remain in the system as prisoners,</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > supervisees, or registrants, or who reenter the system through a subsequent criminal conviction. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">See 73 FR at 38035–36, 38043, 38046–47, 38063–64. This feature of the Guidelines reflects an assumption that it may not be possible for jurisdictions to identify and register all sex offenders who fall within the SORNA registration categories, particularly where they have left the justice system and merged into the general population long ago, but that it will be feasible for jurisdictions to do so in relation to sex offenders who remain in the justice system or reenter it through a subsequent criminal conviction. See 73 FR at 38046.<br /><br />Experience supports a qualification of this assumption in relation to sex offenders who have fully exited the justice system but later reenter it through a subsequent criminal conviction for a non-sex offense that is relatively minor in character. (Where the subsequent conviction is for a sex offense it independently requires registration under SORNA.) In many jurisdictions the volume of misdemeanor prosecutions is large and most such cases may need to be disposed of in a manner that leaves little time or opportunity for examining the defendant’s criminal history and ascertaining whether it contains some past sex offense conviction that would entail a present registration requirement under SORNA. In contrast, where the subsequent offense is a serious crime, ordinary practice is likely to involve closer scrutiny of the defendant’s past criminal conduct, and ascertaining whether it includes a prior conviction requiring registration under SORNA should not entail an onerous new burden on jurisdictions.<br /><br />These supplemental guidelines accordingly are modifying the requirements for substantial implementation of SORNA in relation to sex offenders who have fully exited the justice system, i.e., those who are no longer prisoners, supervisees, or registrants. It will be sufficient if a jurisdiction registers such offenders who reenter the system through a subsequent criminal conviction in cases in which the subsequent criminal conviction is for a felony, i.e., for an offense for which the statutory maximum penalty exceeds a year of imprisonment. This allowance is limited to cases in which the subsequent conviction is for a non-sex offense. As noted above, a later conviction for a sex offense independently requires registration under SORNA, regardless of whether it is a felony or a misdemeanor.<br /><br />This allowance only </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >establishes the minimum required for substantial implementation </span><span style="font-size:85%;">of SORNA in this context. </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >Jurisdictions remain free to look more broadly</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> and to establish systems to identify and register sex offenders who reenter the justice system through misdemeanor convictions, or even those who do not reenter the system through later criminal convictions but fall within the registration categories of SORNA or the jurisdiction’s registration law.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">TAKE ACTION</span>: Submit Your Comments (read and follow instructions carefully)<br /><br />DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before July 13, 2010. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after Midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.<br /><br />ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Linda M. Baldwin, Director, SMART Office, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, 810 7th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531.<br /><br />To ensure proper handling, please reference OAG Docket No. 134 on your correspondence. You may submit comments electronically or view an electronic version of these proposed guidelines at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">http://www.regulations.gov</a>.<br /><br />FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda M. Baldwin, Director, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking; Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 202–305–2463.<br /><br />SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Posting of Public Comments<br />Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by<br />the commenter. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must locate all the personal identifying information you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want<br />redacted.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-35811835765064408232010-05-14T14:20:00.002-04:002010-05-14T14:28:02.042-04:00Man Mistaken For Sex Offender Killed with Bat<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/14/1629000/man-mistaken-for-sex-offender.html">miamiherald.com</a>: Man mistaken for sex offender, killed with bat<br /><a href="http://www.news4jax.com/news/23553940/detail.html">news4jax.com</a>: Man Mistaken For Sex Offender Killed<br /><br />Orlando, Fla. -- The Orange County Sheriff's Office believes a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">78-year-old man was beaten to death with a baseball bat because he was mistaken for a sex offender.</span><br /><br />According to the Orlando Sentinel, Edwards, whose body was found in a pool of blood early Wednesday morning, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">didn't have a criminal history.</span> Two men have been arrested in connection to the slaying of a man inside his Bithlo trailer. Deputies pulled Robert Pascale from a wooded area Thursday evening near the Fifth Avenue trailer where Hugh Edwards, 79, was found dead on Wednesday. Investigators said Pascale was found by a bloodhound in a muddy pond with only his face exposed for air.<br /><br />Pascale is at the Orange County Jail charged with first-degree murder. He told WKMG-TV that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">he mistakenly beat the wrong man.</span><br /><br />When reporters asked him if he thought his alleged victim was a sex offender, he replied,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "I thought he was, and the only thing running through my mind is what my uncle did to me."</span> Pascale continued, "I hit him with a bat twice."<br /><br />A woman told deputies she was drinking at a trailer on Fifth Avenue with some acquaintances Tuesday night when one of Pascale's friends, Michael Garay, asked her what she would do if a sex offender lived next door. The woman told deputies she said, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"I would kill him."</span><br /><br />Although Edwards had a similar name and age as a registered sex offender, sheriff's officials said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Edwards had absolutely no criminal record and was not a registered sex offender.</span><br /><br />Police arrested Garay on Thursday and charged him with accessory after the fact in a first-degree murder. Deputies said he told them he remained at the gate in front of the victim's trailer while Pascale went in with a baseball bat. Garay said he watched Pascale later discard his bloody clothes.<br /><br />According to the arrest affidavit, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">there were signs of a struggle in Edwards' trailer that indicated he was murdered.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This animal should be executed for this horrific crime. but watch: because he murdered someone he THOUGHT was a sex offender, he will likely get a light sentence.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-33225206923305045492010-05-14T01:15:00.004-04:002010-05-14T01:37:57.730-04:00U.S. Marshals Checking On Sex Offenders In Ohio and Iowa<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12465721">ktiv.com</a>: U.S. Marshals conduct sex offender compliance check in Iowa.<br /><a href="http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Marshals-Checking-On-Sex-Offenders-In-Butler/HjU-Vg8VNE-UKn9rMeIFYg.cspx">Local12.com</a>: Marshals Checking On Sex Offenders In Butler County (OH).<br /><br />U.S. Marshals and state-wide law enforcement agencies conducted a compliance check of all registered sex offenders in the Northern District of Iowa.<br /><br />Tim Junker, U.S. Marshal said, "We take a Deputy Sheriff and a U.S. Marshal and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">we knock on a door and ask if you're living where you're supposed to be and look for the sex offender</span>. It makes an impression upon them and they want to stay where they're at."<br />---------------------------------------------------------<br />This week, the sheriff got some big time help from the U.S. Marshals Service tracking them down.<br /><br />Sheriff Richard Jones, Butler County:<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "Every month there's new legislation trying to be introduced making the law tougher and tougher and tougher and the sad thing is they're adding more requirements and we're at wits end, we have no more resources."</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />"For the last week, almost five hundred registered sex offenders across Butler County have been under the scrutiny of law enforcement. Are they where they belong? Are they doing what they're supposed to be doing? Now we know." And we know because of the massive county wide effort, which began two months ago, that's when U.S. Marshal Kathy Jones saw this sobering article in the Middletown Journal. The Butler County Sheriff has been using only one full time deputy and one part-time volunteer to check on almost five hundred registered sex offenders.</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />Marshal Jones added Butler County to the 8 counties where her team has already been working. Bill Taylor, Deputy U.S. Marshal: "We bring a force multiplier in, we bring in additional bodies, fugitive hunters, parole officers probation officers and we set about trying to make sure these people are abiding by the law."</span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We are told that these US Marshall sweeps are being conducted in counties with limited resources or where they do not routinely verify addresses of those registered. If you live in a county which does these routine sweeps, it is unlikely that you will see these "goon squads". In lesser populated and smaller counties, where local sheriffs are overwhelmed by the sex offender registration laws, it is more likely that they will be present.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Know your rights when and if you see these people at your doorstep. Firstly, remember that they are not there to help you or to preserve your rights. They despise you and are there to try to do harm unto you. They are there to try to catch you doing something wrong or not doing what you are required to do. So if there is any way possible that they can justify arresting you, they will do so. If asked, you must provide your name and other identifying information. You are <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> required to allow them entrance into your home and you should <span style="font-weight: bold;">not </span>allow them to enter unless they present a search warrant. You should <span style="font-weight: bold;">not </span>answer any questions which are not related to verifying who you are and proving that you live there. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Notice</span>: we are not legal professionals and we give this advice as such. This information is not to be taken as professional legal advice. It is simply to inform you that you do still have rights. You should verify your rights within your local and state laws. This advice is not to be interpreted as condoning any illegal actions.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-55322374662897609332010-05-14T01:01:00.004-04:002010-05-14T01:14:22.507-04:0097% of Sex Offenders in Riverside County are in Compliance<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/47767/">myvalleynews.com(CA)</a>: 97 percent of convicted sex offenders in Riverside County are reported to be in compliance.<br /><br />An unprecedented </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >97 percent of convicted sex offenders living in Riverside County were in compliance with the state's registration requirements</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> in April.<br /><br />District Attorney's Office spokesman Michael Jeandron said the county's Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement team, composed of law enforcement officers from 16 agencies, recorded a 3 percent noncompliance rate among sex offenders countywide last month.<br /><br />The rate of noncompliance had been hovering around </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >5 percent for the last year</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, according to officials, who said there are 3,269 convicted sex offenders residing in the county.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This is not, as the article implies, a result of some great effort by law enforcement agencies. </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.blogspot.com/2010/05/sex-offenders-provide-accurate-info-to.html">As Iowa reported last week</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">, most (92%)of those forced to register do so in compliance with the laws. Despite the lies told to you by the media, the large majority of sex offenders comply with registration as they are required, even though these laws are violating their constitutional rights.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Also know that law enforcement's definition of "non-compliance" includes those who may make human errors, or try to comply but get caught up in a technicality. This is why you should not trust their statistics on compliance, recidivism, ect..</span></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"> Of course, statistically, the numbers will be similar across the nation. That is how statistical data works.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-7427875042431624022010-05-14T00:38:00.003-04:002010-05-14T00:51:44.108-04:00CA: Supervisors Ready to Back Sex-offender Legislation<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_15050114">sbsun.com(CA)</a>:Supervisors ready to back sex-offender legislation.<br /><br />The Board of Supervisors is poised to sign a letter of support for<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> legislation that would require registered sex offenders to provide law enforcement all of their online addresses, e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.</span><br /><br />On Tuesday (May 11,2010), the board will vote on whether or not to ratify an action to support Senate Bill 1204, introduced in February and authored by Sen. George Runner, R-Antelope Valley.<br /><br />Runner calls his legislation another tool for law enforcement in monitoring some of society's most dangerous sex offenders, who would face up to six months in jail if not in compliance with the new registration requirements if passed.<br /><br />"We know where they live and now we will know what web pages, instant messaging names and e-mail addresses they control," Runner said in an April 20 news release. "The Internet has become a virtual playground to predators. It makes sense to<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> force convicted sex offenders to share their online addresses with law enforcement."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">To view Senate Bill 1204 go to </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm">http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm.</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Select Senate Bill and type in "1204". California residents should contact their representatives to tell them to stop this bill.</span><br /><br />Bill Excerpts:<br /></span><pre><span style="font-size:85%;">"The bill would require a person who is required to register as a<br />sex offender to inform the law enforcement agency <strike> or<br />agencies</strike> with which he or she last registered of all of his<br />or her online addresses, e-mail addresses, and instant messaging user<br />names no later than December 31, 2011, and, thereafter, at the time<br />of original registration and within 30 days of establishing a new<br />online account, and would make it a misdemeanor to fail to do so."</span><br /></pre><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><pre><span style="font-size:85%;">"(e) A person required to register pursuant to the Act shall inform<br />the law enforcement agency <strike> or agencies </strike> with which<br />he or she last registered of all of his or her online addresses,<br />e-mail addresses, and instant messaging user names no later than<br />December 31, 2011, and thereafter, at the time of original<br />registration and within 30 days of establishing a new online account.<br /><strike> Notification may be filed in the same manner as a change of<br />address or may be completed and verified online as permitted by the<br />Department of Justice. </strike> <em> Information received pursuant<br />to this subdivision may, upon request, be shared with the Department"<br />of Justice or other law enforcement agencies. </em></span><br /></pre><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-26023264450156119672010-05-13T12:44:00.003-04:002010-05-13T12:54:14.148-04:00MI: Banning Sex Offenders from Renting Local Public Facilities<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=12475875">wlns.com</a>: Controversy Over Sex Offenders Renting Buildings Continues.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Another in a long line of restrictions on life which former sex offenders must suffer. And yet our courts still refuse to recognize the punitive aspect of these laws.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Should convicted sex offenders be able to rent to community centers and other public facilities? </span>The issue comes to a head with the Lansing City Parks Board and some council members as well, pushing to keep sex offenders out. They say it's all about safety. Shutting the doors on sex offenders might mean overlooking a bigger issue. When it comes to who's renting the local community center, this kind of discussion leads to two very different fears.<br /><br />Eric Hewitt, Lansing City Council: "There's a situation that occurs where someone slips through the cracks and we have a predator that has the opportunity to prey on the citizens, the children of Lansing."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Your'e an idiot Eric Hewitt. Learn the difference between the terms "predator" and "registered sex offender". You want to ban both, yet you fear monger using only the much more rare legal term defining only those of highest risk and repeat offenders.</span><br /><br />And now the park board sounded off. Councilman <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Eric Hewitt says he wants a policy that shuts the doors on people convicted of any sex crime, from rape to public urination.</span> That's because he says he's trying to be cautious. Murdock Jemerson, who's the Director of Lansing Parks and Recreation, says they shouldn't swing the net just yet. Instead he says they need to talk this over with the public rather than in just a small group before they change the policy. They'll have to meet again to continue the debate.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The public safety committee wants the community's input on the issue</span>, so a public hearing is scheduled for <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">June 3rd</span>. 6 News spoke with the man at the center of this debate. Adrian Hill, a convicted sex offender, tried to rent Lansing's Lett's Community Center and that sparked it all. He says he couldn't make it to the meeting, but has these words for the city council.<br /><br />Adrian Hill, convicted sex offender: "Instead of them asking me what my intentions are and working with me, they want to go through these meetings to prevent it instead of coming together to figure out what we can do together to make it work."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Any readers in or near Lansing should attend this meeting and speak forcefully against this proposed ban.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-5245696265754704282010-05-12T23:22:00.005-04:002010-05-12T23:37:56.833-04:00CO: Sex Offenders Can Now Be "Cured"<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.denverlegalview.com/2010/05/new-colorado-sex-offender-bill-headed-for-the-state-senate.shtml">denverlegalview.com</a>: New Colorado Sex Offender Bill Headed for the State Senate.<br /><br />House Bill 10-1364, a controversial piece of legislature extending Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB), is up for a final review by the state Senate after receiving some last minute changes. The main thrust of the bill, to extend the SOMB for another five years, was met with little resistance. Rather, contention surrounding the original bill centered on a bit of modified language pertaining to the Sex Offender Management Board's directive,<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> removing language supporting the theory that there is "no known cure" for sex offenders.</span><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /> <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This has always been a bogus argument. To believe that an individual who has committed a sex-related crime can never change or rehabilitate (or be "cured" to use their subjective term) is an inane, uneducated viewpoint. There is no more sense or logic behind this belief than there is to believe that murderers, domestic abusers, drunk drivers and drug users can never change. <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/sex-offender-recidivism-rate-studies/">Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than those of other offenders</a>.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">This was an important omission because, in Colorado, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">those convicted of sex offenses are offered treatment based on the assumption that there is no known cure for their condition.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Now, that's a stupid statement. Why even provide treatment to people whom you believe cannot be successfully treated...</span><br /><br />In the face of heavy criticism, Democratic House members agreed to a compromise - language directing the SOMB to acknowledge the existence of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"some adult sex offenders" who fit into a group for whom there is no known cure.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-16601404786437855322010-05-12T14:20:00.002-04:002010-05-12T14:25:31.438-04:00Implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Provisions: A Survey of the States<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/202">Sage Journals Online</a>: Implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Provisions: A Survey of the States (2010) -<br /><br /><a href="http://cjp.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/21/2/202">Download PDF report here</a>: Registration Required to view complete document.<br /><br />Andrew J. Harris, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Andrew_harris@uml.edu<br />Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice<br /><br />With the 2006 passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), the United States Congress established a range of requirements for sex offender registration and notification (R&N) systems operated by states, tribal jurisdictions, and U.S. territories. In the years since the law’s passage, these congressional mandates have generated concern within some covered jurisdictions and among national organizations over matters such as the perceived <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">undermining of jurisdictional autonomy, the variance between the law and emerging "best practices," and perceived threats to the viability of state-based sex offender management efforts. </span>To examine these concerns, a national survey was conducted in the fall of 2008 to evaluate the consistency between AWA requirements and existing state policies and practices, and to assess state-based barriers to AWA implementation. The survey results identified several areas of inconsistency between AWA mandates and state practices, particularly those relating to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">inclusion of juveniles, classification methods, and retroactive application of R&N requirements</span>. The study revealed the barriers to AWA implementation within many states to be multifaceted and complex, suggesting the potential <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">need for a recalibration of federal policy governing registration and notification. </span>Implications for the respective roles of federal and state governments in the shaping of sex offender policy are discussed.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-29818694779500439392010-05-12T13:50:00.004-04:002010-05-12T18:52:55.158-04:00DE: Sex Offender Registry too Strict<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-rrUQ7PTGI/AAAAAAAABF4/IoD4H5lbm9Q/s1600/juvenile_SOs.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 199px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-rrUQ7PTGI/AAAAAAAABF4/IoD4H5lbm9Q/s200/juvenile_SOs.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5470443430768233570" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100510/NEWS01/5100329">DelawareOnline</a>: Offender registry called too strict - Delaware's list includes juveniles as young as 9.<br /><br />Their youthful faces stare from the pages of Delaware’s online sex offender registry, some obviously scared, some scowling, some expressionless.<br /><br />These are photographs of children who committed sex crimes. They are branded, a condemnation that can haunt them forever.<br /><br />Delaware has some of the youngest sex offender registrants in the nation – <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">one as young as 9 </span>– according to backers of legislation that would give Family Court judges some discretion in deciding which juveniles belong on the registry and which do not.<br /><br />In registering offenders who are younger than 14, Delaware’s registry system is more stringent than required by the federal<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> Adam Walsh Act, a law that some states complain is too strict.</span><br /><br />Due to political, legal and social concerns, the push to give Family Court judges a say in the matter has run into a wall of opposition. Attorney General Beau Biden opposes the legislation. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Election-minded legislators don't want to give opponents the opportunity to paint them as soft on sex offenders.</span> Publicity about sex crimes has made the issue of sexual offenses even more politically toxic.<br /><br />"I can't even get it out of committee," said Rep. Melanie George, D-Bear, referring to the bill she introduced last year that would give Family Court judges the power to decide if children younger than 14 should be listed on the registry. It also would give them discretion to decide whether juveniles older than 14 should be listed if they are convicted of certain lower-level offenses.<br /><br />A law like that might have kept "Kevin's" name off the registry. But thanks to what critics say is Delaware's one-size-fits-all system, he's a marked man. Now in his 20s and living in another state, Kevin agreed to an e-mail interview on the condition that his real name and certain details of his case be withheld.<br /><br />At age 13, Kevin was caught "messing around" with a younger child and was convicted of two misdemeanor sex offenses. "We were just kids," he said, describing the encounter as consensual but declining to go into detail. Juvenile records are sealed and not available for review.<br /><br />Kevin's listing as a moderate-risk offender put him on the registry -- listings of low-risk offenders can be accessed only by law enforcement -- and being on the public registry has followed him into adulthood.<br /><br />Like all registered sex offenders, Kevin must provide his name, date of birth, address, employer, driver's license number, Social Security number, professional licenses, passport, immigration status and school affiliations to the offender registry. He must update any change in these details of his life within three days or face a felony charge. His photo, name, physical description, address, car license number and crime are on display to anyone. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">There are restrictions on where he can live, and his status is a red flag on job applications.</span><br /><br />"All this has done is made my life difficult. It's not like the public is being protected. I was just 13," Kevin said. Kevin said the incident was his one and only legal offense. His name did not appear during a search of Delaware Superior Court and Court of Common Pleas records.<br /><br />It's tales such as Kevin's that bother Lisa Minutola, chief of legal services for the Public Defender's Office. Minutola has spoken with a few youth offenders whose names still appear on the registry years later, and "they definitely had horror stories of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">not being able to get employment, not being able to get an education</span>," she said.<br />Age limits<br /><br />According to Minutola, the Delaware registry has one person who was listed at age 9 who is now in his teens. Three individuals were <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">placed on the registry at age 10</span>, she said. The registry, which has 2,725 entries, isn't searchable by age.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Only six states actually define the youngest age at which an offender must be registered</span>, "which leaves open the possibility that even very young children who evidence sexual behavior problems may be subject to registration," according to the Center for Sex Offender Management, a project of the U.S. Department of Justice. Of the six states that do define the youngest registration age, North Carolina sets the limit at <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">11</span>; Indiana, Ohio, Idaho and Oklahoma begin registering offenders at <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">14</span>, and in South Dakota the minimum age is <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">15</span>.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Biden took steps to strengthen Delaware's sex offender registry soon after he took office -- and he's not amenable to legislation he believes would weaken it.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />According to Biden and </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Deputy Attorney General Christina </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Showalter, keeping juveniles off the registry or easing restrictions would threaten public safety.<br /><br />Grier Weeks, executive director of the National Association to Protect Children, says "It's not a black-and-white issue. Are there juveniles who commit sex crimes who do not belong on sex-offender registries? Of course," Weeks said.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Facts</span><br /><br />A 2009 study published in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology tracked juvenile sex offenders from adolescence through age 26. Fewer than 2 percent were arrested for an adult sex offense by age 27.<br /><br />Delaware's juvenile sex offender statute "is ruining the next generation," Pittman told a joint meeting of the state House and Senate judiciary committees on March 31. "Delaware has the youngest registrants in the country, and when you say in the country, it means in the world," Pittman said. "Having offenders who are younger than 14 on the registry is problematic."<br /><br />Pittman said recent studies indicate that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> juvenile sex offenders have a recidivism rate of 5 percent to 14 percent </span>-- substantially lower than the rates for other juvenile crimes, which range from 8 percent to 58 percent.<br /><br />In 2006, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act, which contains a provision known as SORNA: the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">That act requires juvenile offenders as young as 14 to register for life if convicted of more-serious sex offenses. States that do not comply will lose 10 percent of their funding from the federal Byrne Grant anti-crime program.</span><br /><br />Delaware revised its law in an attempt to comply with the act, but in doing so it "cast an overly wide net that will tragically engulf nearly all adolescent sexual behaviors, including those prepubescent-like, exploratory behaviors committed largely out of curiosity," Pittman said in a prepared summary of her analysis of Delaware's law.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Politics</span><br /><br />If the recent studies indicating that juvenile offenders are unlikely to commit another offense are true, Delaware's law could run counter to the 2002 state Supreme Court decision in Delaware v. Sapp.<br /><br />In that case, the court advised the General Assembly to keep in mind that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the registry statute must be related to the government's interest in protecting the public from the danger of recidivism of sex offenders.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In other words, statistics must back up any sex offender registry legislation effort. If the statistics aren't there, these sex offender laws will be killed. This is why you constantly see the falsely-cited high recidivism data in the media. We have posted the actual official </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/sex-offender-recidivism-rate-studies/">USDOJ Recidivism studies</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> multiple times on these blogs. How hard is it for the media to find this data if they truly have an interest in publishing factual information? Politicians and activists do a good job of espousing the false data much more loudly than we can publicize the true data.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-59731486417428293482010-05-12T13:06:00.003-04:002010-05-12T13:18:16.945-04:00Split New York Court of Appeals Ruling on SORA<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/05/split-new-york-high-court-ruling-spotlights-key-postpadilla-issues.html">sentencing.typepad.com</a>: Split New York high court ruling.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">New York Court of Appeals : SORA (sex offender registration act) and plea agreements.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Two cases -- People v. Tara Gravino and People v. Robert W. Ellsworth -- commonly ask whether the trial <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">courts' failure to advise the alleged sex offenders of a significant consequence to their guilty pleas rendered their pleas invalid.</span> The first originated in Wayne County, the second in Chautauqua County, NY.<br /><br />Rochester attorney Kathleen P. Reardon will represent Gravino, who argues SORA registration should be a direct -- rather than collateral -- consequence of a plea, and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">must be fully explained to a defendant before they agree to plead guilty.</span><br /><br />Ellsworth argues a condition establishing terms of probation should be considered a direct consequence of his plea and that the court's failure to advise him that "he would lose the fundamental right to live with his children" makes the plea "neither knowing nor voluntary."<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------<br />In an interesting split opinion in NY v Gravino, No. 77 (NY May 11, 2010) <a href="http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/2010/may10/77-78opn10.pdf">(available here)</a>, the New York Court of Appeals rejected yesterday claims about the import of a defendant failing to know certain significant "collateral" consequences of a conviction when entering a plea. In so doing, the Gravino ruling spotlights some critical follow-up questions to the Supreme Court's recent Padilla ruling that an attorney's incompetent advice on immigration consequences of a plea could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.<br /><br />Here is how the majority opinion in Gravino gets started and a key final passage from the court's holding:<br /><br /> "We hold that because they are collateral rather than direct consequences of a guilty plea, SORA registration and the terms and conditions of probation are not subjects that a trial court must address at the plea hearing. Put another way, a trial court's neglect to mention SORA or identify potential stipulations of probation during the plea colloquy does not undermine the knowing, voluntary and intelligent nature of a defendant's guilty plea....<br /><br /> We decide today that SORA registration and the terms and conditions of probation are not direct consequences of a plea -- in other words, that the judge's failure to mention them does not, by itself, demonstrate that a plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent. It does not necessarily follow, though, that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">non-disclosure is always irrelevant to the question of whether a court should exercise its discretion to grant a motion to withdraw a plea.</span> There may be cases in which a defendant can show that he pleaded guilty in ignorance of a consequence that, although collateral for purposes of due process, was of such great importance to him that he would have made a different decision had that consequence been disclosed."<br /><br />Here is how the dissenting opinion in Gravino gets started and some key passages from its discussion:<br /><br /> "Because I believe that SORA certification and subsequent registration and the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">restriction of contact with one's children as a condition of probation are direct consequences of a guilty plea of which a defendant must be informed to make that plea knowing</span>, voluntary and intelligent, I respectfully dissent....<br /><br /> While it is true that Padilla dealt with the duty of counsel, rather than the duty of the courts, to inform a criminal defendant about deportation, the rationale employed by the Court in rejecting the direct/collateral consequence dichotomy applies with equal force in determining the voluntariness of a guilty plea where the court has failed to advise the defendant of SORA registration, which is also a civil penalty "difficult to divorce . . . from [a] conviction."...<br /><br /> Gravino's certification as a sex offender was an automatic and immediate consequence of her conviction for rape in the third degree. Thus, I would hold that sex-offender certification is a direct consequence of Gravino's guilty plea and, without informing Gravino that she would be subject to SORA certification, her guilty plea cannot be said to "represent[] a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to" her (North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25, 31 [1970]).<br /><br /> Similarly, I would hold that a condition of probation that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">prohibits defendant Ellsworth from living with his children is a most significant and direct consequence of his guilty plea.</span> I agree with the majority that "courts taking guilty pleas can not be expected to predict any and every potential condition of probation that might be recommended in the pre-sentence report" (majority op., at 15). It is hardly unforeseeable, however, that upon a conviction for course of sexual conduct with a child in the second degree, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">defendant would be forbidden, as a term of his probation, from living with or having contact with children, including his own."</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-77890591200278151652010-05-11T18:01:00.002-04:002010-05-11T18:08:43.445-04:00Sex Offenders Forced to Use Hotels As Home Address<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/sex-offenders-staying-in-hotels-sex-offenders/6kn0hijhCEi4Hg8F9FWbOg.cspx">WKRC (Cincinnati, OH)</a>: Sex Offenders Forced to Use Hotels As Home Address.<br /><br /></span><table><tbody><tr><td><span style="font-size:85%;"><img src="http://www.local12.com/images/videobullet.gif" /></span></td><td><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.local12.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=46739@wkrc.web.entriq.net" onclick="IDMPlayer.Controls.PlayVideoOnPage('46739@wkrc.web.entriq.net',{CategoryId:'',ContractDefId:'18',ContractVidObjId:'68',ContractBannerObjId:'69',PlayerIndex:'0',ShowOptions:'false'}); return false">Sex Offenders Are Using Hotels as Home Address</a></span></td> </tr> </tbody></table> <div style="" class="StoryBlock"><span style=";font-size:85%;" ><br />Across the country, and right here in the Tri-State, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sex offenders are legally using hotels and motels as residences when they register with law enforcement.</span> They are people like Rodney Hines, a top level sex offender, a convicted burglar and rapist. Until recently, when he was arrested on new charges, the Ohio Attorney General's sex offender website showed this Extended Stay America in Sharonville was home base for Rodney Hines.<br /><br />According to the Kentucky sex offender registry, this Stay Lodge along I-75 in Florence is home to 11 convicted sex offenders. While she didn't want to appear on camera, the manager says that number's wrong... it's really more like half a dozen, but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">they don't cause her any problems and she says they're entitled to a certain amount of privacy like anyone else.</span><br /><br />Searching local registry websites, we easily found nearly 60 sex offenders living in hotels around the Cincinnati area. Recently, U.S. Marshals, probation and parole officers along with sheriff's deputies and police scoured Butler County, checking up on nearly five hundred registered sex offenders, including at least 9 that we discovered living in hotels.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The sex offender registration laws and residency restrictions are the cause of this kind of situation. When you ban former offenders from living in nearly every decent neighborhood, this is the only place many of them can find to live. If you don't like the results, change the residency restriction laws which force former sex offenders to find unorthodox places to live.</span><br /></span></div><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-44753314954744702232010-05-11T17:54:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:59:01.563-04:00Sen. Klein Wants to Kick Sex Offenders Out of Public Housing<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/35071/">theepochtimes.com (NY)</a>: Sen. Klein Urges State to Keep Sex Offenders out of Public Housing.<br /><br />State senators Jeffery Klein and Diane Savino urged New York State Senate and Assembly on Sunday to pass legislation that would keep registered sex offenders from moving into public housing.<br /><br />“Unfortunately, we know that even one sex offender living in public housing is one too many,” Klein said. “No parent or caregiver should ever have to worry that their child is at risk—especially right in their own backyard.”<br /><br />In 1998, Congress passed the Quality House and Work Responsibility Act, which prohibits any person registered as a lifetime sex offender from being admitted by any public housing authority. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires all public housing authorities to perform criminal history background checks on prospective tenants and deny housing admission to registered sex offenders.<br /><br />A March 2009 report released by New York City Councilman Eric Gioia found 129 lifetime sex offenders living in the city's public housing units illegally.<br /><br />In August 2009, the HUD inspectors found 4,784 households with one or more members registered as a serious sex offender. The HUD general inspector said the problem may be that legislation would be required to terminate tenant agreements for those improperly admitted to public housing, but HUD officials claimed public housing officials had the authority to remove registered lifetime sex offenders.<br /><br />A more recent report released by Klein’s office this year showed 74 registered lifetime sex offenders illegally occupying public housing units in the city, with 12 more found in upstate and western New York. The zip code with the highest percentage of sex offenders in public housing was 11354 in Queens, with 40 percent. The zip code with the highest number of sex offenders in public housing was 11212 in Kings County, with 10.<br /><br />“The time to act is now—we must make it easier for state housing authorities <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">to identify sex offenders from the start and to boot out </span>those currently taking advantage of this vital public program,” Klein said.<br /><br />Klein is introducing legislation that would require housing authorities, tenants, and prospective tenants to be provided with a monthly list of all registered sex offenders within the city by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Where do you expect these citizens to live, Mr. Klein? I thought Public Housing is for those who have no other means to find housing. You prefer they live on the streets? Will that make your communities safer?</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-75361049919562337842010-05-11T17:42:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:52:30.491-04:00MI and ME are Doubting the Adam Walsh Act<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://michiganmessenger.com/37660/michigan-not-alone-in-seeking-changes-to-sex-offender-registry">Michiganmessenger.com</a>: Michigan not alone in seeking changes to sex offender registry.<br /><a href="http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/143064.html">BangorDailyNews</a>: Changes sought in federal sex offender act - State rejects provisions as costly, ‘draconian’.<br /><br />The state of Michigan is not the only state struggling to comply with the changes required by the federal Adam Walsh Act to the state’s sex offender registry. The Bangor Daily News reports that Maine is having a difficult time with those requirements as well and may ask for a delay in implementation of those changes.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Legislators from that state call many of the changes required “unworkable” and “draconian” and say they have not yet found a way to comply with the law in a way that makes sense.</span> One of the major problems there, as here, is how to treat juvenile offenders and those in so-called Romeo and Juliet relationships.<br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Maine officials say the federal Adam Walsh law</span>, which sets requirements for sex offender registries — including those for juvenile offenders — <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> is unworkable and should be changed. </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Members of the state’s congressional delegation are listening.</span><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> “It just does not work,” said Sen. Stan Gerzofsky, D-Brunswick, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice Committee. “On our committee we have spent a lot of time trying to come up with a law that works for Maine, and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Adam Walsh does not.”</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Gerzofsky expects the state will seek another one-year extension to comply with the law but doubts the new Legislature elected in the fall will go along with the<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> “draconian” provisions of the law</span> that have been rejected by the current and past legislatures. Only one state, Ohio, has complied with the federal law.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“Congress should change the law and let the states do what works for that state,”</span> Gerzofsky said. “We have looked at what it would cost to comply with the act and what we get under the Byrne grants and I just don’t think it is worth it.” Byrne grants provide funding to state and local police for a wide array of projects from equipment purchases to paying for special enforcement details.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> Attorney General Janet T. Mills agreed with Gerzofsky and said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">many other attorneys general across the country have expressed concern about portions of the Adam Walsh law.</span> “All states have a great deal of difficulty imposing the very tough restrictions on juveniles that the act requires.” “That is just one of the concerns,” Mills said.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> The law requires states to have lifetime registration for the most serious of offenders, such as those convicted of sexual abuse or aggravated sexual abuse; abusive sexual contact against a minor less than 13 years old; or an offense involving kidnapping of a minor.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> But the laws and definitions of sex crimes vary greatly by state, and creating a registry based on the risk of a person offending would be very expensive, experts have told Maine lawmakers.</span></p><p style=""><span style="font-size:85%;"> Members of the state’s congressional delegation say they are open to some changes in the law as urged by state officials, but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">none supports a total repeal of the law</span>. There is agreement that serious sex offenders should be on a registry and be required to report where they live for a long period of time.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in an interview that other states are in the same position as Maine — that is, where <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> state courts have ruled against portions of the sex offender registry laws</span>. She said at a minimum Congress should consider giving the states more time to work through the complicated issues before facing the possibility of a reduction in federal assistance.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud said<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the fact that a large number of states are not in compliance with the law should be a clear message to Congress that it should consider making some changes.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;">U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree said she was not in Congress when the law was passed. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">She said it is becoming increasingly clear the law needs to be changed.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">The state has until July 1 to apply for another waiver from the Justice Department. Mills thinks it will be granted. But as the law stands the state will face sanctions a year from July if it does not change its sex offender registry to comply with the Adam Walsh law <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">or if Congress does not change provisions in the law.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-60487572253471440152010-05-11T17:37:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:40:08.957-04:00How Your Son Could End Up on the Sex Offender List<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.parentdish.com/2010/05/11/how-your-son-could-end-up-on-the-sex-offender-list/">parentdish.com</a>: How Your Son Could End Up on the Sex Offender List.<br /><br />Let's say your son turns 18. He gets a job at the local carnival, running the ride where the kids lie face down and spin around till they shriek with delight (or puke). Before each ride he has to buckle the kids in so they don't fly out. But then -- tragedy strikes.<br /><br />Oh, don't worry. Nobody goes flying. They're buckled just fine. But one girl does tell her mother, "He touched my bottom!" The mom alerts the police.<br /><br />The police come over and ask, "Is that true?" Your son replies, "Maybe. I have to lock the bar around their waists and between their legs. They squirm. It could have happened."<br /><br />The next day the police take him in for questioning. They ask him the same thing, this time with the videotape running. He gives them the same answer. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It is considered his confession. He is convicted of "Indecent Assault and Battery on a Child." He goes to jail for nine months. He is put on the Sex Offender Registry -- for life.</span><br /><br />Meantime, a few years later, your younger son is now 18. He's at the urinal in the school bathroom during a weekend service project. A girl too young to read bursts in and he yells, "Out out out! Get out!" She starts crying and leaves. Her mom is concerned. The police are called. Was he in the men's room with a girl?<br /><br />Well, yes. Since everyone agrees the girl was not touched, he is convicted of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Visual Sexual Aggression Against a Child" -- the crime of having a child see his genitals. He does six months in jail. He's placed on the Sex Offender Registry for the next 10 years.</span><br /><br />Let us remember this when we look up our local sex offender maps and see two convicts: One who ostensibly exposes himself to children and one who ostensibly assaults them.<br /><br />We consult those maps because, as parents, we are hardwired to worry about our children. We worry about them getting hurt by strangers. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">But few of us worry about them getting hurt by strange laws that can put a young man behind bars for touching a child, even accidentally, on the bottom, in public, with everyone's clothes on. Or for having a child, even accidentally, glimpse his private parts.</span><br /><br />I spoke to the actual mom of these two young men. She's a fishing net-maker in Maine and she put it pretty succinctly: <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"We're all just one accusation away from the sex offender registry."</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-76451529256256771602010-05-11T17:25:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:34:06.924-04:00Canada to Ban Pardons for Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=3013257">nationalpost.com </a>: Canada to Ban Pardons for Sex Offenders.<br /><br />A bill, introduced Tuesday in the House of Commons,seeks to exclude from the system sex offenders who harmed children.<br /><br />"The current system of pardons implies that what the person did is somehow OK, or is forgiven, or that the harm done has somehow disappeared," Mr. Toews told a news conference. "That is not for the state to do; that is something that is done between individuals as opposed to the state."<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">If pardons say "what the person did was OK", then how do you justify pardons for murderers, and not sex offenders? Perhaps those who committed a sex offense against a minor should murder the victim, so they can be forgiven? The blood of these victims will be on the hands of these kinds of lawmakers who craft laws which classify murder as a lesser offense than sex crimes.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-51123962311041083632010-05-11T17:16:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:22:43.904-04:00Haidl Wants to Avoid Registering as Sex Offender, Case to Supreme Court<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/greg-haidl-wants-to-avoid-registering-as-sex-offender-takes-case-to-supreme-court.html">latimes.com</a>: Greg Haidl wants to avoid registering as sex offender, takes case to Supreme Court.<br /><br />Greg Haidl, the<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> son of a former assistant Orange County sheriff who was convicted of sexually assaulting a teenage girl</span> at a Newport Beach home, wants the California Supreme Court to take up his appeal.Haidl’s attorney, Dennis Fischer, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">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.</span><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.dailypilot.com/articles/2010/05/11/publicsafety/dpt-haidl051110.txt">here</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Only when more relatives of prominent state and federal officials get caught in this net will the courts and laws change. To those judges and elected officials who created these sex offender laws: one day you may wake up to find someone you love is now a registered sex offender!</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-81491009462683164132010-05-11T17:07:00.002-04:002010-05-11T17:14:45.906-04:00Sex Offenders Provide Accurate Info to Law Enforcement, Study Finds<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://iowaindependent.com/33763/sex-offenders-provide-accurate-info-to-law-enforcement">iowaindependent.com</a>: Sex Offenders Provide Accurate Info to Law Enforcement, Study Finds.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Despite the lies told to you by the media, the large majority of sex offenders comply with registration as they are required, even though these laws are violating their constitutional rights.</span><br /><br />Federal authorities who double-checked addresses of Iowans required to register as sex offenders discovered that only a small percentage provided erroneous information to authorities.<br /><br />U.S. Marshals teamed with local law enforcement to conduct the Sex offender Tracking And Registration (STAR) project in the 52 counties that comprise the Northern District of Iowa. The teams checked all registered sex offenders in the district, a total of 1,745 individuals, and discovered that only 155 — or roughly <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">8 percent — had provided false addresses</span>. Charges have been made against 63 of those found to be in non-compliance, and there might be more charges made in the future.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If 155 are providing false information, then why only charge 63? Because their definition of compliance includes those who can make human errors, or try to comply but get caught up in a technicality. This is why you should not trust their statistics on compliance, recidivism, ect..</span><br /><br />The project comes on the heels of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">national criticism that the sex offender registry isn’t working as well as it could because offenders are lying about their addresses and/or switching addresses without notifying authorities.</span> Law enforcement officials for municipalities and counties have also argued that they have been provided mandates to check on registered sex offenders, but have not been provided the funding necessary to complete the task. Those same officials have also gone on record, at least in Iowa and a few other states, to explain that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> strict residency restrictions can sometimes be counter-productive to keeping track of known offenders due to limited housing opportunities.</span><br /><br />Yet, despite the arguments and estimates that perhaps 25 percent or more sex offenders have wrong addresses on file, authorities conducting the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">home checks found most individuals provided correct information</span>. Tim Junker, U.S. Marshal for the Northern District, said at a press conference Monday, however, that there is no way of knowing if the Iowa figures will translate to other federal districts.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Of course, statistically, the numbers will be similar across the nation. That is how statistical estimations work.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-89550488521205716212010-05-10T22:42:00.006-04:002010-05-10T23:13:39.870-04:00Elena Kagan: Supreme Court Nominee Raises Questions<span style="font-size:85%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-jJRvqcRzI/AAAAAAAABFw/2jEG5xsnOf8/s1600/kagannominee.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 179px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-jJRvqcRzI/AAAAAAAABFw/2jEG5xsnOf8/s200/kagannominee.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5469843054130906930" border="0" /></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan">Elena Kagan</a>, <a href="http://www.justice.gov/osg/">United States Solicitor General</a> was nominated today to the United State Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.<br /><br />Here,we examine just two aspects of her professional views related to sex offender laws.<br /><br />1. <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/05/10/on-kagan-where-the-gop-might-attack/">The Marshall Memo:</a> In 1993, Kagan wrote a memo praising former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she had clerked and whom had just died. At the time, Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If you truly believe this, Ms. Kagan, then surely the societal and legislative attacks on registered sex offenders stands as the penultimate example of a class of citizens who are currently "despised and disadvantaged" in this nation.</span><br /><br />2. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the administration's top courtroom lawyer, urged the justices to uphold a 2006 federal law providing for the continued detention of sexually dangerous federal inmates who have completed their prison terms. In <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/differing-reports-on-us-v-comstock-hearing/">United States vs. Comstock</a>, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/us-supreme-court-ready-to-hear-comstock-case/">January 2010</a>, she acted on behalf of the U.S. government to argue that the federal government has the power to imprison citizens after they have completed their prison terms. Kagan argued in favor of <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/there-are-limits-on-congress%e2%80%99s-power/">civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” people after they complete their federal prison terms. </a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">This should raise a large red flag to anyone favoring her appointment to SCOTUS. If she favors indefinite confinement of sex offenders by the government well beyond their prison terms, she is not qualified to be a judge who has the obligation to uphold, defend and protect our Constitutional rights.</span><br /><br />Sources:<br /><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60B4NY20100112">reuters.com</a>: U.S. justices question sex offender confinement law.<br /><a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sex-offender_case_is_test_of_necessary_and_proper_clause/">abajournal.com</a>: Sex-Offender Case Is Test of Necessary and Proper Clause.<br /><a href="http://www.stlbeacon.org/content/view/14313/83/">stlbeacon.org</a>: Sex offenders: Lock 'em up and throw away the key?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Elena Kagan, arguing for the government, compared the indefinite detention of sex offenders to quarantining those infected with "some very contagious form of drug resistant tuberculosis.</span>" In the case of a TB infection, Solicitor General Kagan said, we'd say the government has the power to hold the person for the safety of society. Justice Stevens picked up on the analogy and pressed the attorney on the other side: Doesn't the federal government have the power to quarantine?<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The idea that sex offenders are not like ordinary criminals but somehow sick or diseased and have to be segregated from the general population is a powerful one and may operate as a subterranean motivation for much legislation in the area</span>. But the analogy also discloses an ambivalence about how we think about sex offenders. Are they like ordinary criminals (bank robbers, reckless drivers, etc.) who should be punished and then released? Or are sex offenders more like people who are ill, who need treatment and care -- perhaps indefinite treatment and care -- rather than punishment?<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-13378765937792958892010-05-09T23:47:00.004-04:002010-05-10T12:19:51.715-04:00Illinois Retroactive Sex Offender Law Passes Unopposed<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.ilvoices.com/">Illinois Voices</a> reports that Illinois Passes Retroactive Sex Offender Registration Bill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=SB&DocNum=3084&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=50667">Senate Bill SB3084</a> 96th General Assembly<br />Status: 5/7/2010 - Passed Both Houses<br /></span><span class="heading2" style="font-size:85%;">Short Description:</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> </span><span class="content" style="font-size:85%;">SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION-RETROACTIVE</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span class="heading2" style="font-size:85%;">Senate Sponsors</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span class="content" style="font-size:85%;">Sen. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1476">Iris Y. Martinez</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1513">William Delgado</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1507">John J. Millner</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1552">Toi W. Hutchinson</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1473">Jacqueline Y. Collins</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1505">A. J. Wilhelmi</a></span><span class="content" style="font-size:85%;"> and </span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1554">Emil Jones, III</a><br /><br /></span><span class="heading2" style="font-size:85%;">House Sponsors</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span class="content" style="font-size:85%;">(Rep. </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1537">Deborah Mell</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1405">Raymond Poe</a> - <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1524">Dennis M. Reboletti</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1447">Linda Chapa LaVia</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1373">Jack D. Franks</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1410">Michael K. Smith</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1382">Charles E. Jefferson</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1538">Keith Farnham</a>, <a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1567">Carol A. Sente</a></span><span class="content" style="font-size:85%;"> and </span> <span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="content" href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=1486">Robert F. Flider</a>)<br /><br />Synopsis As Introduced:<br />Amends the Sex Offender Registration Act. Provides that </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >a person is required to register as a sex offender who was not previously required to register before the effective date of this amendatory Act because the sex offense that the person committed occurred before a specified date.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Requires that person to register within 5 days after the effective date of this amendatory Act. Provides that if the person is confined, institutionalized, or imprisoned in Illinois on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act, he or she shall register in person with the local law enforcement agency within 5 days of discharge, parole, or release. Provides for the duration of the registration.</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > Effective immediately.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Retro-active (or Ex Post Facto) laws are prohibited by the United States Constitution (Section 9) and by most State Constitutions, as well. See </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/us-constitution-ex-post-facto-lesson/">U.S. Constitution : Ex Post Facto Lesson</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. Illinois now joins the infamous ranks of Ohio and Nebraska as being one of the corrupt state governments which have enacted retro-active "punitive" laws upon any resident who has committed any sex-related offense anytime in their life. These laws impose punishment, restrictions and life-long requirements to register (often with imposed fees) on those who were convicted or pleaded of any sexually-orientated crime at any time in their lives.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Illinois citizens must contact their representatives ( and bill sponsors who are listed above) to express to them your opposition to this illegal legislation. Remember that these people are your servants and they work for you, as a voting citizen. You should be respectful (only because they will not listen to you otherwise) but firm and direct. You should tell them to repeal this illegal law immediately.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Then, all those affected directly by this law need to begin the process of legally challenging this law in the Courts. See <a href="http://opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Information/Adam_Walsh.htm">here</a> for sample legal motions and information about how you can challenge the law pro se (yourself without an attorney). Illinois people should also contact the Illinois Public Defender Office to urge them to assist, as the <a href="http://opd.ohio.gov/AWA_Information/Adam_Walsh.htm">Ohio Public Defender Office</a> has in these efforts.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-63055243447128787712010-05-09T14:35:00.003-04:002010-05-09T14:47:50.754-04:00AL: Sex Offender Arrested For Living With Minors<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.wncftv.com/localnews/93157369.html">wncftv.com</a>: Sex Offender Arrested For Living With Minors.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ago.state.al.us/contact.cfm">Attorney General Troy King</a> announced the arrest today of a Muscle Shoals sex offender who is charged with residing with young children in violation of state law.<br /><br />M. Jones, 47, was arrested today at the Colbert County Sheriff’s Office, where he has been registered as a sex offender for a <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">1988</span> conviction of sexual abuse against a girl who was younger than 12 years old.<br /><br />“Alabama law requires sex offenders to register and to abide by certain rules and restrictions for the protection of our citizens, and particularly for the safety of vulnerable young children,” said Attorney General King. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“If a sex offender has previously committed a crime against a young child family member, it is a crime for the predator to endanger other children by living in the same household with them.”</span><br /><br />The Attorney General’s Family Protection Unit presented evidence to a Colbert County grand jury on May 5, resulting in Jones’ indictment. Specifically, the indictment charges that Jones “as an adult criminal sex offender, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">did knowingly establish a residence or any other living accommodation where a minor resides…and that the defendant has been convicted of a criminal sex offense…in which any of the offender’s minor children, grandchildren, or stepchildren were the victim</span>, in violation of Section 15-20-26, of the <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/Coatoc.htm">Code of Alabama</a>.” If convicted, Jones faces a penalty of two to 20 years and a fine of up to $30,000.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Let me see if I get this right. If you made a terrible mistake over 20 years ago, the Alabama government will ban you for life from living with a child or person under the age of 18? Do Alabama people understand that even someone who made a mistake (involving a relative) has the right to start a family and have children?</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-56674956081679178492010-05-09T14:17:00.004-04:002010-05-09T14:32:25.660-04:00Duluth Ordinance to Ban Sex Offenders from Affordable Housing<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-b-FskENuI/AAAAAAAABFo/S1DAcw4kGEQ/s1600/cityduluth0506.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 185px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-b-FskENuI/AAAAAAAABFo/S1DAcw4kGEQ/s200/cityduluth0506.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5469338171303278306" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/167890/">duluthnewstribune.com</a>: Ordinance would ban sex offenders from most affordable housing -Three city councilors are proposing an ordinances that would prevent convicted Level 3 sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a church, playground or day care. But critics say <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the measure would push those offenders back toward a life of crime.</span><br /><br />If you look closely, there’s a spot on the Aerial Lift Bridge where Level 3 sex offenders could live.<br /><br />Otherwise, if an ordinance proposed by three <a href="http://www.duluthmn.gov/clerk/council/">Duluth city councilors</a> passes on Monday, the number of areas sex offenders who are most likely to reoffend can live in Duluth would be severely limited. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The ordinance would all but bar them from most low-income housing areas in the city.</span><br /><br />That’s according to a map put together by the city of Duluth that shows where the offenders would be banned — which is within 2,000 feet of any church, playground or day care.<br /><br />Not that the councilors who proposed the ordinance have any problem with that. But some experts disagree. Studies suggest that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">limiting where sex offenders can live doesn’t reduce the rate of repeat offenses — but actually increases it,</span> said William Donnay, the director of risk assessment and community notification for the Minnesota Department of Corrections.<br /><br />A Department of Corrections study of all 224 sex offenders from 1990 to 2002 who returned to prison for another offense found that in <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">not a single case would the reoffense been prevented by restricting where the offender could live.</span><br /><br />Donnay says <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">other studies show that making it harder for an inmate to find housing increases that person’s instability, leads to homelessness and increases chances of reoffending</span>. An ordinance like the one proposed by the Duluth City Council, he said, provides a false sense of security for residents.<br /><br />“People conclude because of the residency restrictions, there are never any sex offenders in my neighborhood,” he said. “It’s not where they’re sleeping at night, who they’re hanging out with, who they are associating with. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It’s where are they spending their time during waking hours?</span> That’s what we need to look at in terms of recidivism.”<br /><br />Tom Roy, executive director of Arrowhead Regional Corrections, which supervises the offenders, said he also believes the<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> restrictions might increase the likelihood of reoffending.</span> “We would support efforts that would tend to support sex offenders rather than destabilize their lives,” Roy said.<br /><br />Offenders would largely be banned from the areas and facilities they typically use for housing now, such as the Seaway Hotel and the CHUM shelter.<br />----------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.areavoices.com/buzz/?blog=77743">areavoices.com</a>:Duluth News Tribune.<br /><br />It really worries that me <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">experts with the Minnesota Department of Corrections</span> and Arrowhead Regional Corrections<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> say the ban would probably make it more likely that the Level III sex offenders would re-offend.</span> Is it spin? Surely the ordinance would make their jobs harder in finding a place to live for the offenders, but their foremost interest is in making sure their offenders don't re-offend. So I'll take their word that the ordinance will make it worse, not better.<br /><br />If you're interested in looking through the data cited to me by the DOC, it mostly went with <a href="http://www.corr.state.mn.us/publications/documents/04-07SexOffenderReport-Recidivism.pdf">this 2007 study</a>. And it seems pretty <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">conclusive that this ordinance won't make our neighborhoods safer</span>. One of the things pointed out to me by the DOC that I didn't quite squeeze into my article:<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> in an overwehelming amount of the re-offenses (89 percent), the victim was known to the offender -- meaning the council ordinance would have no real affect on that percentage. </span>Of course, if the council ordinance reduces the 11 percent were strangers number, then that's a positive, right?<br /><br />The city council has only received four emails on this topic so far -- all in opposition to the ordinance. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-56437135567217942532010-05-07T12:58:00.001-04:002010-05-07T13:00:16.101-04:00Adam Walsh Update : May 2010<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://briefcase8.com/2010/05/07/friday-roundup-60/">The Briefcase</a>: Adam Walsh Update.<br /><br />Adam Walsh Update. I’ve mentioned that there are still some major cases in the US Supreme Court that haven’t been ruled upon, but there are a few pending in the Ohio Supreme Court, too, probably the most significant of which is the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act. The case was argued last November (<a href="http://briefcase8.com/2009/11/05/awa-and-the-separation-of-powers/">discussion here</a>), but I don’t see a ruling anytime soon. The decision was likely to be 4-3, with Tom Moyer being the swing vote, and his death removes that possibility. New Chief Justice Eric Brown could call for re-argument of the case, and probably will, but he’s in no hurry to do so. If you’re wondering why, take a look at the calendar, especially November 2, 2010. That’s election day, when Brown and present Justice Maureen O’Connor will face off for the Chief Justice spot. If you think the Supreme Court is going to make a ruling on something as controversial as sex offender registration before that, you’re a lot less cynical than I am.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-5831305965788820222010-05-07T00:48:00.003-04:002010-05-07T00:59:45.693-04:00NFL Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor : Latest "Sex Offender"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-OeL0Ljm3I/AAAAAAAABFg/fsBuwXOpSW8/s1600/taylorlawrence21.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 133px; height: 180px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S-OeL0Ljm3I/AAAAAAAABFg/fsBuwXOpSW8/s200/taylorlawrence21.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5468388298380778354" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=10580671">ABCnews</a>: Ex-NFL Star Lawrence Taylor Charged With NY Rape.<br /><br />Former NFL star Lawrence Taylor charged with raping 16-year-old runaway in NY hotel room<br /><br />Pro Football Hall of Famer Lawrence Taylor was charged Thursday with raping a 16-year-old runaway who police said was forced into prostitution by a man who had beaten her up.<br /><br />Taylor, a 51-year-old former New York Giants star who has faced drug and tax evasion charges in the past, paid the girl $300 for sex in a Holiday Inn, where he was arrested early Thursday, said Christopher St. Lawrence, supervisor of the town of Ramapo.<br /><br />The man who'd beaten the girl drove her to Taylor's suburban hotel room, police said.<br /><br />Ramapo Chief of Police Peter Brower said Taylor was cooperative when police woke him up around 4 a.m. Taylor was arraigned Thursday on charges of third-degree rape and patronizing a prostitute.<br /><br />His attorney, Arthur Aidala, said Taylor is a "loving family man" who did not have sex with the teenager.<br /><br />"My client did not have sex with anybody," Aidala said. "Lawrence Taylor did not rape anybody."<br /><br />Brower would not comment on whether Taylor knew the girl's age; third-degree rape is a charge levied when the victim is under the age of consent, which is 17 in New York.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Of course, this man is innocent until proven guilty. But if convicted, it once again points to the fact that anyone -- you, your family member, or loved one -- could end up as a "sex offender" one day only to have their life crushed under these draconian sex offender laws. Sex offenders are not just the homeless monsters stereotyped by public perception.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-12911468598655771942010-05-07T00:36:00.002-04:002010-05-07T00:45:52.842-04:00Sex-Offender Encampment in Anaheim, CA<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-0507-sex-offenders-20100507,0,2185624.story">latimes.com</a>:California parole agency breaks up sex-offender encampment in Anaheim.<br /><br />On Wednesday, officials with the Parole Department relocated 30 to 40 paroled offenders who had been living in cars and RVs outside its office on Coronado Street, police say. In Orange County, where more than a third of the paroled sex offenders are homeless, police estimated that 30 or 40 had taken to camping on the streets in this industrial stretch.<br /><br />The situation stems <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">from Jessica's Law, the 2006 statute that forbids sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools, parks or other places where children gather, severely limiting lodging options in densely populated cities.</span> "These people have difficulty finding residence, so they make do," said Anaheim police Lt. Julian Harvey.<br /><br />The sex offenders are required to meet regularly with their parole officers, and those without a power source use the office to charge up the electronic ankle bracelets that monitor their whereabouts.<br /><br />After media inquiries and business complaints, however, the state Parole Department cleared the block Wednesday night, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">moving the sex offenders to another location</span>. Anaheim police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said the parole agency did not inform the Anaheim police where the offenders had been relocated.<br /><br />On Wednesday afternoon, hours before the streets were cleared, a convicted 41-year-old child molester was sitting near the parole office in his vehicle, his belongings filling the back seat. He said he lost his lodging nearby after a Boys & Girls Club moved in down the block, putting him in violation of Jessica's Law. After four years in prison, he said he has been living in his vehicle for months and that nobody has hassled him.<br /><br />The California Department of Corrections, which runs the Parole Department, "has been very good to us," he said<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">. "They know we can't go anywhere."</span> He said the sex offenders who camped there did not associate with each other because the law forbade it. He said he felt a measure of protection living near the parole office.<br /><br />"All of us are safer than in the streets," he said. Still, he did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation. He said he had heard a rumor that there might be a drive-by shooting targeting the campers.<br /><br />According to the Parole Department, California has about 8,580 registered sex offenders on parole, about <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">2,000 of whom are classified as transient</span>. Of Orange County's 302 registered sex offenders on parole, 119 are transient, and in Los Angeles County, the homeless represent 421 of 1,896 offenders.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"The bottom line is, they're going to be in the city some place,"</span> Kenneth Ford, the Parole Department's chief deputy regional administrator, said in an interview earlier this week. "We're trying to make them be compliant with the law. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">You're not going to find a lot of compliant housing for them."</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">People just don't seem to understand this. If you displace a population of people from legally living in nearly any area of decent housing, they still will live somewhere. These laws only serve to force them to congregate in clusters, into areas which are of lower socio-economic status which only increases the likelihood of desperation and recidivism </span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-90671591957878560062010-05-05T15:03:00.003-04:002010-05-05T15:43:26.770-04:00Ohio Supreme Court Election Results 2010<span style="font-size:85%;">As the nation awaits the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court on four consolidated challenges to the Ohio Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act laws ( Adam Walsh Act/ Senate Bill 10), we were told that they were afraid to issue the ruling before the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/when-will-ohio-supreme-court-rule-on-awa-2/">May 4, 2010 Primary Elections were held</a>. This is sad, of course, that a State Supreme Court would be held hostage by a political election, however the results are in and we will hope to see a Constitutional ruling soon. The results really mean nothing, as the cases were already heard and we are just awaiting the release of the decision, which has probably already been made.<br /><br /><strong>Supreme Court Chief Justice </strong><br /><em>1,068 of 1,068 precincts</em><br /></span> <table style="width: 250px;"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding: 2px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Eric Brown (D)</span></td> <td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">83,812</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><strong>Supreme Court</strong><strong> Chief Justice</strong><br /><em>1,068 of 1,068 precincts</em><br /></span> <table style="width: 250px;"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding: 2px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Maureen O'Connor (R)</span></td> <td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">41,013</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><br />Justice, Jan. 1 term</strong><br /><em>1,068 of 1,068 precincts</em><br /></span> <table style="width: 250px;"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="padding: 2px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Mary Jane Trapp (D)</span></td> <td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">80,379</span></td></tr> <tr> <td style="padding: 2px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Judith Ann Lanzinger (R)</span></td> <td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">36,763</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><strong><br />Justice, Jan. 2 term (unopposed)</strong><br /><em>1,068 of 1,068 precincts</em><br /></span> <table style="width: 250px;"><tbody><tr><td style="padding: 2px;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Paul E. Pfeifer (R)</span></td> <td style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size:85%;">36,805</span></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-18184164433640357592010-05-04T18:05:00.002-04:002010-05-04T18:09:41.488-04:00Acheson v. State of Ohio - Twelfth District Court of Appeals<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.twelfth.courts.state.oh.us/Press/20100503%5BWarren%5BCA2009-06-066%5BAcheson%20v.%20State%5B.pdf">Acheson v. State of Ohio - 12th District Court of Appeals</a><br />Case number CA2009-06-066<br /><a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/12/2010/2010-ohio-1946.pdf">Read decision here.</a><br /><br />CASE: Scott Acheson v. State of Ohio<br />CASE NO: Warren CA2009-06-066<br />PANEL: Presiding Judge H.J. Bressler, Judges Robert P. Ringland and<br />Robert A. Hendrickson<br />JUDGMENT: Reversed and remanded; w/dissenting opinion<br />TRIAL COURT: Warren County Court of Common Pleas<br /><br />The Twelfth District Court of Appeals has reversed the denial of a Middletown man's<br />petition for removal of sex offender registration requirements.<br /><br />Scott Acheson was convicted of rape in 2005 and required to register as a sex offender.<br />In January 2008, Acheson received a letter from the Ohio Attorney General informing him that<br />he had been reclassified as a Tier III sex offender. This new classification required him to<br />register as a sex offender for life and required him to comply with community notification.<br />Acheson filed a petition requesting removal of the new registration, which the trial court denied.<br />Acheson appealed to the Twelfth District and argued that the new Ohio sex offender laws<br />were unconstitutional. Acheson also argued that one of the laws containing an exception which<br />exempted sex offenders from the community notification requirement applied to him.<br /><br />Writing for the court, Judge Robert A. Hendrickson reversed the judgment of the trial<br />court. Judge Hendrickson noted that all of Acheson's arguments challenging the<br />constitutionality of Ohio's new sex offender laws had been struck down by the Twelfth District in<br />previous cases. Judge Hendrickson found, however, that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the trial court should have considered</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Acheson's community notification claim.</span> The appellate court therefore sent the case back for<br />the trial court to address that claim. Presiding Judge H.J. Bressler concurred in the opinion.<br />Judge Robert P. Ringland filed a dissenting opinion.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The decision of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals reversed the denial of Acheson's</span><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">petition and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-20329893361073479442010-05-04T00:32:00.002-04:002010-05-04T00:35:30.596-04:00Residency Restrictions Make Sex Offenders More Dangerous<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://voiceofoc.org/blogs/article_cf3abdbe-570f-11df-9626-001cc4c03286.html">voiceofoc.org</a>: Residency Restrictions Could Make Sex Offenders More Dangerous.<br /><br />Restrictions on where convicted sex offenders can live may not protect children from predators, but may encourage offenders to become hard-to-track transients, the<a href="http://www.casomb.org/"> California Sex Offender Management Board</a> said in its latest report to the governor:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"There is no evidence that restricting where sex offenders live will prevent repeat sexual offending against children.... The unintended effect of the residency restriction has been to hugely increase the number of parolee sex offenders registered as transients. California communities are less safe when offenders are homeless."</span><br /><br />The latest report echoes findings the board released in January. It was asked to <a href="http://www.casomb.org/">update the report</a> following the case of John Albert Gardner III, who pled guilty on April 16 to the murders of two teenage girls in the San Diego area.<br /><br />Laws with names like Megan's Law and Jessica's Law, intended to protect children, have been enacted nationally and in California in recent years. California prohibits registered sex offenders from living close to parks or schools.<br /><br />But as Voice of OC <a href="http://voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_d0178716-50f3-11df-bfdd-001cc4c03286.html">reported April 29</a>, homeless sex offenders are a growing problem.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-33845096066468914232010-05-03T12:35:00.003-04:002010-05-03T12:59:12.253-04:00Steve Austria: Bad for Ohio<span style="font-size:85%;">We have reported several times on Ohio Congressmen Steve Austria's unsavory character. We thought it only fair that we re-post all the corruption reports of this man's time in office as he advertises his <a href="http://www.steveaustriaforcongress.com/">"Steve Austria for Congress"</a> campaign.<br /><br />Multiple issues involving corruption and fraud of Steve Austria were uncovered in 2008. He has thumped his chest about violating the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens, has taken more than a half million dollars in contributions from “big money special interests, including some of the world’s largest health care, insurance, oil, and banking companies – the same people who are responsible for many of the most serious problems facing our country. Austria steered a no-bid contract to former Rep. Dave Hobson's campaign contributors, which has been equated with the corrupt activity that has landed former congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) in federal prison. Austria denied 2,000 citizens their right to place on the ballot an initiative to vote up or down on $14 million of Greene County tax dollars for financing The Greene, privately developed by Steiner and Associates. Charges were brought against Austria for steering 'No Bid' government contracts to to campaign contributors of Rep. Dave Hobson.<br /><br />The Dayton Daily News editorial board criticized Austria as being “scared of saying anything that might offend”. The board concluded that if voters select Austria “they are settling for mediocrity, quite possibly on a long-term basis.” DDN wrote that “Austria’s attacks are shameful” and that “Austria has not earned a major promotion” as he has “no compelling record”.<br /><br />Steve Austria is also responsible for sponsoring the Ohio Adam Walsh Act/Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which violates the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens by retroactively reclassifying them into higher tiers and imposing life-long restrictions and registration requirements onto them. Two years after he thumped his chest about passing this terrible and abusive law, he admitted that his law is not effective. <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/sex-offender-registry-couldnt-stop-ohio-deaths/">"Austria acknowledged, though, that no law probably could have been written that would have avoided the “horrific and disturbing tragedy” that’s unfolding in Cleveland."</a><br /><br />Related Posts:<br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/ohio-senator-steve-austria-corruption-fraud-arrogance/">Ohio Senator Steve Austria: Corruption, Fraud, Arrogance</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/corruption/">Corruption</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/constitutionalfights-online/">ConstitutionalFights Online</a><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/contact-the-elected-officials/">Contact the Elected Officials</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-33856820499015452782010-05-02T18:56:00.009-04:002010-05-02T23:26:59.707-04:00HR1623 International Megan's Law<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S94M2KnqObI/AAAAAAAABFY/8zPSQRIm-sg/s1600/CoSponsors+HR1623.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 200px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S94M2KnqObI/AAAAAAAABFY/8zPSQRIm-sg/s200/CoSponsors+HR1623.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5466821122377529778" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">From </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:Calisto MT;"><strong><a href="http://www.rsolvirginia.org/">RSOL of Virginia</a><br /></strong></span>Re: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/international-megans-law-moves-forward-in-us-house/">International Megan's Law Moves Forward in US House</a>.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">If you try to e-mail the sponsor of <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1623/show">HR1623</a>, <a href="http://chrissmith.house.gov/">Chris Smith (NJ)</a>, and are not a constituent of his, you will be unable to do so on his website.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> <span style="">Most Congress and Senate members design their web sites to prevent anyone outside their districts from contacting them. Therefore, we must begin on another letter-writing effort. An associate has gathered all the e-mail addresses of the U.S. Judiciary members below. A list of all the co-sponsors of </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1623:">HR1623</a> can be found <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01623:@@@P">here</a>, below , and at the image to the right (click to enlarge).<br /><br />Call and Write to:<br /><br />Sponsor:<br /><a href="http://chrissmith.house.gov/">Chris Smith (NJ)</a>Washington, DC Office,2373 Rayburn House Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20515,p 202-225-3765,f 202-225-7768<br />Co-sponsors:<br /><a href="http://berkley.house.gov/">Rep Berkley, Shelley </a>[NV-1] - 405 Cannon HOB,Washington, D.C. 20515,Phone: (202) 225-5965,Fax: (202) 225-3119<br /><a href="http://bilbray.house.gov/">Rep Bilbray, Brian P</a>. [CA-50] - 2348 Rayburn HOB,Washington, D.C. 20515,Phone: (202) 225-0508,Fax: (202) 225-2558<br /><a href="http://bilirakis.house.gov/">Rep Bilirakis, Gus M.</a> [FL-9] - 1124 Longworth HOB,Washington, DC 20515,ph: 202-225-5755,<br />fx: 202-225-4085<br /><a href="http://www.boozman.house.gov/">Rep Boozman, John</a> [AR-3] - 1519 Longworth HOB,Washington, DC 20515,Phone: (202) 225-4301,Fax: (202) 225-5713<br /><a href="http://burton.house.gov/">Rep Burton, Dan</a> [IN-5] - 2308 Rayburn House Office Building,Washington, DC 20515-0001, (202) 225-2276<br /><a href="http://crenshaw.house.gov/">Rep Crenshaw, Ander </a>[FL-4] - 440 Cannon House Office Building,Washington, DC 20515,Main:202-225-2501,Fax: 202-225-2504<br /><a href="http://www.house.gov/lincolndavis/">Rep Davis, Lincoln</a> [TN-4] - 410 Cannon House Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20515, Phone: 202.225.6831 Fax: 202.226.5172<br /><a href="http://fortenberry.house.gov/">Rep Fortenberry, Jeff</a> [NE-1] - 1535 Longworth HOB,Washington, D.C. 20515,Phone: (202) 225-4806,Fax: (202) 225-5686<br /><a href="http://kaygranger.house.gov/">Rep Granger, Kay</a> [TX-12] - 320 CANNON HOB,WASHINGTON, DC 20515,PH. 202-225-5071,FAX 202-225-5683<br /><a href="http://johnhall.house.gov/">Rep Hall, John J.</a> [NY-19] - 1217 Longworth House Office Bldg • Washington, DC 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-5441 • Fax: (202) 225-3289<br /><a href="http://inglis.house.gov/">Rep Inglis, Bob</a> [SC-4] - 100 Cannon House Office Building,Washington, DC 20515,Phone: (202) 225-6030,Fax: (202) 226-1177<br /><a href="http://www.house.gov/kildee/">Rep Kildee, Dale E.</a> [MI-5] - 2107 Rayburn House Office Building - Washington, DC 20515 - Ph: 202-225-3611 - Fax: 202-225-6393<br /><a href="http://peteking.house.gov/">Rep King, Peter T.</a> [NY-3] - 339 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: 202-225-7896 Fax: 202-226-2279<br /><a href="http://latourette.house.gov/">Rep LaTourette, Steven C.</a> [OH-14] - 2371 Rayburn House Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20515,(202) 225-5731 phone,(202) 225-3307 fax<br /><a href="http://lungren.house.gov/">Rep Lungren, Daniel E.</a> [CA-3] - 2262 Rayburn HOB • Washington DC 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-5716 • Fax: (202) 226-1298<br /><a href="http://manzullo.house.gov/">Rep Manzullo, Donald A. </a>[IL-16] - 2228 Rayburn Blding Washington, DC 20515 ph: (202) 225-5676 fax: (202) 225-5284<br /><a href="http://www.marchant.house.gov/">Rep Marchant, Kenny</a> [TX-24] - 227 Cannon HOB,Washington, DC 20515,202.225.6605, Fax:202.225.0074<br /><a href="http://mccotter.house.gov/HoR/MI11/Home/">Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G.</a> [MI-11] - 1632 Longworth House Office Building, Washington DC 20515, 202-225-8171<br /><a href="http://nye.house.gov/">Rep Nye, Glenn C.</a>, III [VA-2] - 116 Cannon HOB,Washington, D.C. 20515,Phone: (202) 225-4215,<br />Fax: (202) 225-4218<br /><a href="http://pascrell.house.gov/">Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr.</a> [NJ-8] - 2464 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515<br />Phone: (202) 225-5751 | Fax: (202) 225-5782<br /><a href="http://www.house.gov/payne/">Rep Payne, Donald M.</a> [NJ-10] - 2310 Rayburn House Office Building · Washington, District of Columbia 20515,Phone: (202)-225-3436,Fax:(202)-225-4160<br /><a href="http://poe.house.gov/">Rep Poe, Ted</a> [TX-2] - 430 Cannon Building,Washington, D.C. 20515,(202) 225-6565,(202) 225-5547 fax,(866) 425-6565 toll free<br /><a href="http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/">Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana</a> [FL-18] - 2470 Rayburn H.O.B.,Washington, DC 20515-0918<br />Telephone: 202-225-3931,Fax: 202-225-5620<br /><a href="http://www.house.gov/upton/">Rep Upton, Fred </a>[MI-6] - 2183 Rayburn House Office Building,Washington, D.C. 20515, (202) 225-3761,Fax: (202) 225-4986<br /><a href="http://joewilson.house.gov/">Rep Wilson, Joe</a> [SC-2] - 212 Cannon House Office Building • Washington, DC 20515 • Phone: (202) 225-2452 • Fax: (202) 225-2455<br /><a href="http://wolf.house.gov/">Rep Wolf, Frank R.</a> [VA-10] - Washington Office,241 Cannon Building,Washington, DC 20515,(202) 225-5136,(202) 225-0437 fax<br /><br />I know it takes time to print, address and stamp all those envelopes in addition to the cost, but if we really want to stop this bill everyone should do it. If you don't take the initiative to write or call those who will be voting on this bill, then you can't complain if it passes an is enacted.</span><br /><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />Also, here is a copy of her letter if you want to use it for ideas as you write your own letter :<br /><br />"Dear U.S. Congressman/woman __________,<br /><br />The International Megan’s Law, Bill HR1623 was introduced on March 19, 2009 by New Jersey Congressman Christopher Smith and previously submitted by him in 2008 as HR5722. HR1623 may be coming up for a vote in the next few weeks.<br /><br />Unfortunately, HR1623 has not been discussed by the U.S. Judiciary Committee as we had hoped it would be.<br /><br /><br />HR1623 would require any U.S. Citizen who happens to also be a registered sex-offender to seek permission and approval for any travel outside the U.S. That’s more than 700,000 Americans today it will be more than 760,000 Americans in 2011 and more than 820,000 Americans in 2012.<br /><br />This proposed bill is a violation of American's constitutional rights.<br /><br />It’s also a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution as it would be retroactive, without regard to how long ago the conviction was or if the person poses any credible threat to anyone.<br /><br />Ex post facto (or retroactive) laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution. The U.S Constitution applies to all American citizens regardless of any crime they may have committed in the past.<br /><br />The current Megan’s Law and Adam Walsh Law have already brought ruin to the lives of hundreds of thousands of American citizens, as well as to their families. The hysteria that politicians have created by telling Americans “we want to protect your children” - then passing these laws and mandating states to create sex-offender registries where vigilantes can map to the register’s front door or contact their employer to harass the employer to release the registered person - is a blatant violation of their civil liberties and right to privacy.<br /><br />Do you know what qualifies someone as a sex-offender today?<br /><br />Multiple crimes of varying degrees are now “Registerable” offenses. The plain and undeniable truth is there are even innocents listed on the State Registries. This is where the Sex Offender Registry has taken a strange and unjustifiable deviation from any attempt at reducing crime. There is a huge difference between stealing a newspaper and robbing a bank, both crimes are considered theft but both are separated by law and society; thus the penalties are proportionately different from one another. This is right and this is justice. The current laws that stigmatize someone as a “Sex Offender” in the United States DO NOT distinguish between the high-risk and low-risk offender. All are considered as the same once listed, all those on the Sex Offender Registries are assumed to be a “pervert”, a “pedophile” and a “predator”.<br /><br /><br />The sex-offender registries are not protecting anyone. They are a means to humiliate, degrade, re-prosecute and destroy the lives of thousands of innocent citizens. These registries are a way for politicians to look like heroes to concerned parents. You have created a modern day witch hunt which is wasting millions of tax-payers dollars. The U.S. Registries have become a useless list of names that the public can no longer use to decipher who is a true threat and who has simply been swept up in this legislative predator hysteria. Dilution of the registry is not the solution.<br /><br />Now you want to force ALL registered sex-offenders to ask for permission to vacation, to visit family or to attend business functions. What positive public purpose does that serve? The answer is none.<br /><br />The RSOL of Virginia clearly and defiantly opposes child trafficking. The Legislative assumption that anyone placed on the registries is likely to commit such a heinous crime is simply outrageous. Imposing this law onto U.S citizens who carry the label of sex offender is simply wrong and you know it.<br /><br />You can stop spreading fear and loathing across our country and now across the oceans.<br /><br />Tell Congressman Smith and all 23 co-sponsors of HR1623 why this bill should not be passed as it does nothing to protect America ."</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-14425307213702898642010-04-29T12:52:00.004-04:002010-04-29T13:50:04.576-04:00International Megans Law Moves Forward in US House<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2010/04/law-targeting-international-sex.html">sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com</a>: International Megan's Law Moves Forward.<br /><a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042810.html">lifesitenews.com</a>: International Megan's Law Moves Forward in U.S. House.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/members.asp">U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs</a> approved legislation Wednesday that would establish an international database of registered sex offenders and traffickers – an international version of the U.S. “Megan’s Law” – which its sponsors say would greatly assist authorities worldwide in preventing the exploitation of children by international sex tourists. </span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >(and would also ban registered sex offenders from traveling outside the U.S.)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />The measure, sponsored by<a href="http://chrissmith.house.gov/"> U.S. Congressman Chris Smith</a>, a New Jersey Republican, is called <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1623/show">“the International Megan’s Law of 2010”</a> and would establish </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >mandatory reporting requirements for convicted sex traffickers and registered sex offenders against children who intend to travel overseas.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br />The House committee cleared the legislation to go to the floor of the full U.S. House of Representatives in a unanimous voice vote.<br /><br />Currently the fight against keeping sex predators from exploiting children abroad depends on cooperation between national governments and international police agencies, such as between Interpol and U.S. border and customs officers.<br /><br />But Smith, a longtime human rights leader and author of anti human-trafficking legislation in 2000, 2003 and 2005, said international cooperation is largely “ad hoc” and leaves wide gaps for sexual offenders</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > to travel to and from international destinations largely unnoticed and anonymous. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Despite the “sincere effort” of U.S. and foreign agencies, Smith said that international sharing of information about traveling child sex predators only happens occasionally.<br /><br />The proposed bill takes specific aim at child sex tourism. Smith’s proposed law </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >would require that the United States provide advance notice of a “high risk” individual’s intended travel to the government authorities of their destination</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, and would request foreign governments to notify the United States when individuals with known records of sexually preying upon minors seek to enter the United States.<br /><br />If approved by Congress, the International Megan’s Law </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >would establish a sex offender travel notification system for U.S. authorities on the look-out for sex offenders intending international travel to and from the United States</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, non-public sex offender registries in U.S. embassies to </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >keep critical information on U.S. sex predators living abroad</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, and would provide the U.S. Secretary of State with the</span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > ability to revoke or severely restrict the passport of an individual </span><span style="font-size:85%;">convicted overseas of a sex crime against a minor.<br /><br />The proposed bill would also provide financial assistance to other countries to help them establish systems to identify and report child sex offenders to U.S. authorities.<br /><br />Foreign Affairs Chairman <a href="http://www.house.gov/berman/">Howard Berman (D-Calif.)</a> urged his colleagues in the House on both sides of the aisle to support the bill, which is expected to come before the full House before the summer recess.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">IMPORTANT:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The politicians play-up this bill in the media to make it sound like it is targeted on child sex exploitation, which of course is hideous, but arouses public support of it. But the fact is that this <span style="font-weight: bold;">International Megan's Law will prevent virtually anyone ever convicted of a sex offense involving a minor from traveling outside the United States !</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">See previous post: </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/a-move-to-register-sex-offenders-globally/">A Move to Register Sex Offenders Globally</a><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We have previously reported that </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);" href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/sex-offenders-banned-from-entering-canada/">any registered sex offender can now be banned from entering Canada</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> if they run your passport at the border. If this bill becomes law, <span style="font-weight: bold;">anyone ever convicted of a sex offense which involved a minor will be banned by our government from overseas travel.</span> Anyone ever convicted of a sex crime who lives abroad <span style="font-weight: bold;">will be on a U.S. sex offender registry to monitor their locations overseas.</span> This is unconstitutional to disallow hundreds of thousands of American citizens from the ability to vacation or travel to Europe, Asia or any other destination. Yes, even sex offenders have dreams to see other parts of the world.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;">We must all immediately contact our </span><a style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;" href="https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml">US House Representatives</a><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-weight: bold;"> to tell them to stop this bill !</span><br /><br />Read text of bill here: <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1623/text">http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1623/text</a></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-44009677021695069872010-04-29T02:43:00.003-04:002010-04-29T02:47:31.505-04:00Our Sex Offender Laws are CRAZY<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/our-sex-offender-laws-are-crazy/">Freerangekids.wordpress.com</a>: Our Sex Offender Laws are CRAZY.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.magicvalley.com/news/local/article_441731b0-5a17-5b4f-8890-a70bc318ae88.html">This story </a></span> <span style="font-size:85%;">was just sent to me and I am stunned and going out of my mind. A 34-year-old Nevada woman who was convicted of making a 13-year-old boy touch her breasts — I agree, gross and totally wrong — was sentenced to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">MANDATORY LIFE IN PRISON.</span><br /><br />She will be eligible for parole in 10 years. As her public defender said: ”She is getting a greater penalty for having a boy touch her breast than if she killed him.”<br /><br />No one — Free-Range or not — is in favor of adults molesting minors. But the idea that “public lewdness” can carry a mandatory life sentence just highlights the hysteria of the times we are living in — times when we are so sex offender-obsessed we fail to consider whether we are really making children any safer with our over-the-top laws and our “zero tolerance” for common sense. As one commenter named “justthefacts” wrote beneath the original news story:<br /><br /> "Humor me please... a man leaves a bar intoxicated, gets behind the wheel of his vehicle, chooses to drive off and ultimately gets in an accident and kills a 13 year old boy, unintentionally, but still is blatantly guilty of vehicular manslaughter. He is charged with the following in Nevada: $2000-$5000 fine, 25 years – Life prison sentence with a possibility of parole after 10 years. This is the actual sentence for a crime of this caliber. With that being said, should this woman really, seriously, get the same exact sentence?"<br /><br />Wouldn’t community service and some rehab or therapy have made a lot more sense? Or maybe a week in jail? <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We’ve got to change these laws</span>. If anyone is more versed than me in how we go about this, tell all. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-79716420662758808122010-04-28T15:28:00.008-04:002010-05-13T16:39:25.608-04:00Sex Offenders : Sex Offender Mp3<span style="font-size:85%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9iONVhKtaI/AAAAAAAABFI/8DjCVgpZbeU/s1600/cover+-+sex+offenders.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 122px; height: 122px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9iONVhKtaI/AAAAAAAABFI/8DjCVgpZbeU/s200/cover+-+sex+offenders.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5465274507579798946" border="0" /></a>We try to always stay focused on topic here at ConstitutionalfightsFights.org.<br />But we veer off the road momentarily to post an Mp3 audio file by a female-fronted punk rock band called <a href="http://blogs.pitch.com/wayward/2010/04/sex_offenders_present_the_titu.php">"Sex Offenders"</a>.<br /><a href="http://www.nuthousepunks.com/blogfiles/Sex%20Offenders%20-%20Sex%20Offender.mp3"></a><br />Download Mp3 <a href="http://drop.io/sxoffsxoff">here.</a><br /><br />Okay, so perhaps we have other motives, like increasing traffic to our blogs to those who would never search for us... and demonstrating how ludicrous the term "sex offender" has become in our culture.<br /><br />And if this doesn't convince you of how ridiculous the sex offender label has become, you can watch a spoof music video called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfCYZ3pks48">"The Sex Offender Shuffle"</a> from <a href="http://www.scottgairdner.com/sex-offender-shuffle/">Scott Gairdner</a>. History has shown that when things get mocked in popular culture, it is often the beginning of the end for them.<br /></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9iSu9_qDmI/AAAAAAAABFQ/fAsUAla3Ml8/s1600/sexoffshuffle.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 129px; height: 95px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9iSu9_qDmI/AAAAAAAABFQ/fAsUAla3Ml8/s200/sexoffshuffle.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5465279483427294818" border="0" /></a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-21837833240093607482010-04-27T13:16:00.002-04:002010-04-27T13:19:58.731-04:00Utah Towns Rape Sex Offenders<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Extra-fee-for-sex-offenders/XkPk5YRBsUaR42NHCogPjg.cspx">abc4.com</a>: Utah Towns Charge Fee to Sex Offenders.<br />Related post: <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/ohio-county-sheriffs-rape-sex-offenders/">Ohio County Sheriffs Rape Sex Offenders.</a><br /><br />Sex offenders will now have to pay more money to live in certain Utah communities. Some towns are <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">now charging sex offenders $25 a year</span> to make sure offenders' vehicles or places of residence are listed on the sex offender registry. South Ogden, Roy, and Riverdale have started charging. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The new fee is in addition to state fees.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-20042990637732438622010-04-27T12:58:00.002-04:002010-04-27T13:12:56.043-04:00Ohio Still Only State Stupid Enough to Enact Adam Walsh Act Requirements<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_677058.html">pittsburghlive.com</a>: Ohio only state to meet federal Adam Walsh requirements.<br /><a href="http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/story/Ohio-Only-State-To-Comply-With-Sex-Offender-Law/tMh1bCzc1kevRlLwFCEj3w.cspx">kypost.com</a>: Ohio Only State To Comply With Sex-Offender Law.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">One</span>....That's how many states in the U.S. have fully complied with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act of 2006. The nationwide law is aimed at creating an across-the-board method of registering and tracking sex offenders throughout the country, where, a recent study found, a total of 704,777 sex offenders reside.<br /><br />So far, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">only Ohio has complied.</span><br /><br />Previously, each individual state created and followed their own tracking and registration formats. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> All 50 states, the District of Columbia and federally recognized Native American tribes were supposed to be in "substantial implementation" of the law by July 2009.</span><br /><br />But all jurisdictions received an extension last year, said Scott Matson, a senior policy advisor with Florida's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. "And they have another year if they request it," he added. That means the final deadline could be July 2011 -- five years after the measure became law.<br /><br />In the meantime, Coffee said Florida did submit a compliance package at the end of last year and that she hopes to hear from the SMART Office within the next few weeks.<br /><br />According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, as of January there were 7,900 sexual predators, 45,325 sexual offenders and 93 juvenile sexual offenders in Florida.<br /><br /><a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/missing-kids-center-enjoys-fed-rules-exemptions/">National Center for Missing and Exploited Children President Ernie Allen</a> said he thinks the primary issue boils down to money and there are<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> some states weighing the cost of losing federal funds versus complying with the act.</span><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Ohio is the only state to meet the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.<br /><br />The Justice Department rejected the state's first application over how juveniles appear on the list.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The implementation cost about $400,000.</span><br /><br />Ohio relies on county sheriff's departments rather than state police as in Pennsylvania to enforce registration of sex offenders and predators.<br /><br />Mercer County, Ohio Sheriff Jeff Grey, who was part of a task force to hammer out changes, said most were good, but not all.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "I don't like that the (law) took discretion away from judges,"</span> he said. The Walsh Act requires uniform sentences.<br /><br />"In Cleveland, <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/sex-offender-registry-couldnt-stop-ohio-deaths/">Anthony Sowell was in compliance</a>. He apparently was also a serial killer," the sheriff said.<br />Sowell, 50, of Cleveland, is accused of killing 11 women whose remains were found in or around his Imperial Avenue house.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-27365125530991964482010-04-26T14:30:00.004-04:002010-04-26T14:46:33.642-04:00Social Networking Ban on Sex Offenders Could be Unconstitutional<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/02/BAIN1C98UB.DTL">sfgate.com</a>: Bill to ban social networking for sex offenders.<br /><a href="http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/under-the-dome/Harris-social-network-ban-could-be-unconstitutional-86273537.html">sfexaminer.com</a>: Harris’ social network ban could be unconstitutional.<br /><br />Sex offenders in California would be barred from using social networking Web sites such as Facebook and MySpace under a proposed law aimed at making the Internet safer for children.<br /><br />Citing horrific cases in which children were sexually assaulted by men they met online, <a href="http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a61/">Assemblywoman Norma Torres</a>, D-Pomona (Los Angeles County) introduced the bill last month, which </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >would make it a crime for Californian's 63,000 registered sex offenders to use any social networking site.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> The proposed law defines those as a Web site "designed with the intent of allowing users to build networks or connect with other people and that provides means for users to connect over the Internet."</span><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" > (which could be virtually any web site which requires a "log-in" or registration)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><a href="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2208_bill_20100414_amended_asm_v97.html">Assembly Bill 2208</a> is similar to legislation passed last year in Illinois, but doesn't go quite as far as a </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >New York state law that additionally requires sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and online aliases with state authorities</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, who can then turn over the names to the companies that run the social networking sites. After the New York law passed, 3,500 sex offenders were purged from MySpace and Facebook by the Internet companies.<br /><br />All of the laws depend to some extent on the assumption that sex offenders will police themselves.<br /><br />San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who is sponsoring the measure, </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >acknowledged that the proposed law isn't a fail-safe measure</span><span style="font-size:85%;">, but said it will offer a deterrent to sex offenders who do not want to return to jail.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Is there an argument that District Attorney Kamala Harris’ push to ban sex offenders from social networking Web sites is unconstitutional? At least one legal expert thinks so.<br /><br />Chris Hoofnagle is the director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology's information privacy programs and an expert in information privacy law.<br /><br />Social networking sites are primarily designed help people communicate with each other and </span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >a ban of sex offenders from them would be overbroad, considering a majority of users of Facebook, for example, are over the age of 18,</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Hoofnagle said.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" >“Cutting a class off from a very important communication medium could implicate first amendment issues,"</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> Hoofnagle said. “For instance, what if a law was proposed that sex offenders couldn’t use the telephone, or the mail. I mean that clearly would be overbroad and problematic. Well, social networking sites are the new mail, right?”<br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Harris’s logic is dumbfounding. If it is acceptable to take away access to Internet technology from anyone who has committed a sex-related crime, let’s do the same for anyone who has committed a crime against another human (any form of assault, murder, physical abuse, ect.). The facts are these:<br /><br />1. Enforcing such laws is impossible. Anyone with half a brain can figure out how to create a false user name or secondary email address to register with any social network.<br /><br />2. Social networking sites who claim to remove sex offenders are simply practicing public relations. Sure, they may find and remove a few of the really stupid ones who register their real names, but most people do not register on these sites with their real full name.<br /><br />3. As we have written many times in these blogs, it is very rare for any sex offense to occur as a result of meeting a stranger on a social networking site. This is an urban myth. When rare contact is made between teens and strangers, it is sought out by the teenagers. The study <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/report-calls-online-threats-to-children-overblown/">“found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be propositioned by adults online. In the cases that do exist, the report said, teenagers are typically willing participants and are already at risk because of poor home environments, substance abuse or other problems”</a>.<br /><br />4. Research shows that the <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/sex-offender-on-social-site-felony/">median age for facebook /myspace is 27/26 years of age respectively.</a> In other words, social networking sites are not the Internet equivalent to children’s playgrounds, as the media would have us believe.<br /><br />5. Hysteria about these social networking sites has long ago been proven to be overblown.<br />See our postings <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/report-calls-online-threats-to-children-overblown/">“Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown”</a>, and <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/sex-offender-on-social-site-felony/">“Sex Offender on Social Site = Felony”</a><br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Bill Summary:<br /></span><pre><span style="font-size:85%;">This bill would, in addition, make it a misdemeanor for any person<br /><strike> required to register as a sex offender </strike> <em> who<br />is on probation or parole for the conviction of a crime that requires<br />him or her to register as a sex offender </em> to use any Internet<br />social networking Web site, as defined <em> , during that period of<br />probation or parole if the victim of the offense was </em> <em> under<br />18 years of age at the time of the offense or the Internet was used<br />in the commission of the crime </em> . The bill would authorize the<br />person to seek an exception to the prohibition for legitimate<br />professional purposes by applying through the appropriate parole or<br />probation supervising agency <strike> when that person is on parole<br />or probation or by applying through the Department of Justice when<br />that person is not on parole or probation </strike> . Approval would<br />be valid for one year, unless revoked. The bill would authorize an<br />annual application for renewal. By creating a new crime, this bill<br />would impose a state-mandated local program.<br /></span></pre><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-23786568073516825542010-04-25T14:20:00.002-04:002010-04-25T14:37:41.627-04:00Flaws Found in State Child-abuse Registries<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/25/flaws-state-child-abuse-registries/">foxnews.com</a>:Flaws Found in State Child-abuse Registries.<br /><br />Combatting child abuse is a cause with universal support. Yet a push to create a national database of abusers, as authorized by Congress in 2006, is barely progressing as <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">serious flaws come to light in the state-level registries that would be the basis for a national list.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In North Carolina, an appeals court ruled last month that the registry there is unconstitutional because alleged abusers had no chance to defend themselves before being listed.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In New York, a class-action settlement is taking effect on behalf of thousands of people who were improperly denied the chance for a hearing to get removed from the state registry.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">And the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case this fall arising from the plight of a California couple whose names remain on that state's registry years after they were cleared of an abuse allegation made by their rebellious teenage daughter.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"Nobody wants to be seen as soft on child abuse — and that's gotten us where we are,"</span> said Carolyn Kubitschek, a New York attorney who has waged several court battles over the registries. "In the state of New York, it is still almost impossible to get off the list."<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">More than 40 states have the abuse registries — which are distinct from the better-known registries of convicted sex offenders</span> that every state makes publicly available on the Internet. The abuse lists aren't accessible to the public, but are used by day-care centers, schools, adoption agencies and other entities to screen people who want to adopt, be foster parents or get a job working with children.<br /><br />Even critics of the registries say they can serve a vital purpose in barring perpetrators of serious abuse from roles where they would interact routinely with children. It's the process underlying many of the registries that has come into question — and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">their potential to entangle innocent people as well as wrongdoers.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A person doesn't have to be convicted or even charged with a crime to get listed. </span>Under the general practice in most states, entries are based on a child protection investigator's assertion that the person committed an act of abuse or neglect; <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">hearings or appeals, if granted at all, often come long after the name is entered.</span><br /><br />"<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Anybody can call a child abuse hotline and report abuse</span> — anybody, including your ex-spouse who hates you, your landlord who's trying to evict you," Kubitschek said.<br /><br />By law, she said, child protection services must investigate each call — and their subsequent <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">reports can lead to a person's placement on an abuse registry before they are notified or allowed to defend themselves.</span><br /><br />The problems with due process were highlighted last year in an interim report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has been directed by Congress to assess the feasibility of a national child abuse registry.<br /><br />"Strong due process protections could necessitate significant changes to CPS investigation processes in some states that could be costly to implement and may discourage participation in a national registry," the HHS report said.<br /><br />The report also questioned whether a national registry might be plagued by "false positives" affecting innocent people sharing a name with a perpetrator.<br /><br />The potential problems will be assessed by a new HHS-commissioned study over the next two years, examining the state registries, gauging the states' interest in participating in a national registry, and trying to determine if one is indeed needed.<br /><br />"Would a national registry in fact be useful to states?" said Barbara Broman, an HHS official who oversaw preparation of the interim report. "We do not know the answer to that question."<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Congress authorized a national child abuse registry in 2006 as part of the Adam Walsh Act</span>, named for a Florida boy abducted and murdered in 1981. His father, John Walsh, hosts the TV series "America's Most Wanted."<br /><br />Among those urging faster progress toward a national registry is Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who says such a list would help track child abusers who cross state lines to avoid detection and offend again in the new location.<br /><br />"It doesn't make any sense at all that while we try to watch sex offenders like hawks, we let child batterers, who physically batter children, slip through the cracks," he told a news conference last month.<br /><br />However, Howard Davidson of the American Bar Association's Center on Children and the Law, said <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">most people on the state registries are accused of neglect, not battering or other physical abuse.</span><br /><br />Davidson supports use of the registries to screen potential adoptive or foster parents. But he questions whether they're a suitable tool for employers to vet job applicants because of inconsistencies in the level of proof required to register a name.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A disproportionate number of people on the registries are poor</span>, Davidson said, decreasing their chances of successfully challenging an unfair inclusion on the list.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Even the National Child Abuse Coalition, a major player in Washington in advocating on behalf of abused children, is cautious about the proposed national registry.</span><br /><br />Tom Birch, the coalition's legislative counsel, said there are many unanswered questions about the registry's costs and how it would reconcile differences in the states' definitions and handling of child maltreatment.<br /><br />"Rushing ahead to create a national registry is not the way to go at this point," he said. "It would need to be done right."<br /><br />While the abuse registries remain out of the spotlight in most states, there have been some notable recent developments. Among them:<br /><br />___<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">California has had a series of cases involving people who were exonerated of abuse allegations yet struggled to get their names off the state's Child Abuse Central Index.</span><br /><br />One such case is scheduled to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. Lawyers say it will draw attention to the registry debate even though the issue before the justices involves a dispute over Los Angeles County's position in the case — not some of the more fundamental issues raised during their nine-year legal battle.<br /><br />The couple, Craig and Wendy Humphries of Valencia, were arrested in 2001 after their daughter, then 15, accused them of abuse; their younger children were placed in foster care. State courts ruled the allegation was false but they remain on <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the list of 800,000 names.</span><br /><br />In 2008, a federal appeals court found the registry system unconstitutional because<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> there's no way for the innocent to clear their names</span>. The ruling empathized with the Humphries as <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"living every parent's nightmare."</span><br /><br />Esther Boynton, the Humphries' attorney, is frustrated by what she considers a slow, piecemeal government response to the ruling.<br /><br />"It shows how the defendant is circling the wagons, how hard they will fight," she said. "This goes on and on and on. My clients are living through that."<br /><br />Boynton knows the ordeal firsthand — she was placed on the abuse index in 1990 after accidentally splashing her 17-year-old daughter with hot coffee. Only three years later, applying for a volunteer job, did she learn she was on the list; it took two more years of litigation to get removed.<br /><br />Later, Boynton represented a Bakersfield stockbroker, Scott Whyte, who had been accused of child abuse by an ex-girlfriend in 1986. Whyte avoided contact with their son for years, worried that another allegation might land him in prison, before he was cleared and won a 2007 court ruling upholding his right to challenge the index system.<br /><br />Despite the vindication, Whyte says being on the registry left lasting scars.<br /><br />"I will never get over this — it is still oozing out of me," he said in a telephone interview. "I think I've given up my anger, but I have to continually readdress that. Forgiveness was so difficult."<br /><br />Boynton says the officials responsible for the registries have good intentions, with the aim of protecting children, but often overlook <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the harm that can befall people wrongly placed on the lists.</span><br /><br />"If they do look, they'll see that parents and children have a shared interest," she said. "Accurate information helps everyone. Inaccurate information can pull people apart unfairly."<br /><br />___<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">North Carolina's Court of Appeals ruled in March that the state's registry process was unconstitutional</span> because it gave suspected abusers no chance to defend themselves prior to being listed. The ruling also required a higher standard of proof before a name could be entered.<br /><br />Sherry Bradsher, director of the state's Division of Social Services, said the legislature would amend the law to conform with the ruling. Temporarily, she said, the roughly 8,000 names on the list will not be made available — but their long-term status is uncertain.<br /><br />The law was challenged by Kelly Holt, whose name had been on the list since 2007 even though he denied abusing his son and was never charged with a crime.<br /><br />His attorney, Miriam Thompson, said the unanimous appeals court ruling brought tears to her eyes with its eloquent affirmation of the right to due process.<br /><br />"I have two daughters — I'm all for protecting them," Thompson said.<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "But you've got to provide a better system before you accuse someone and put them on that list. That's a punishment</span>, a state action with consequences. Before you do that, you've got to prove it."<br /><br />___<br /><br />In New York State, lawyer Thomas Hoffman is representing<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> thousands of people who may have been improperly denied the chance for a hearing to get removed from the state abuse registry.</span><br /><br />Hoffman says somewhere <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">between 17,000 and 25,000 requests for hearings were terminated</span> prematurely by the Office of Children and Family Services between 2003 and 2007 — in many cases with the request letters simply shredded. Under a proposed class action settlement, the state has agreed to restore their right to a hearing and promised not to allow employers access to their names in the meantime.<br /><br />However, Hoffman says<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> it may take years for these hearings to be scheduled</span> — which could leave many of the affected individuals in limbo while prospective employers get no response of any sort to screening requests.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"At least 50 percent of the people who get a hearing are exonerated</span>," Hoffman said. "There are a lot of people who don't belong there, and it's taking too long to exonerate them."<br /><br />"There's a good purpose for these lists," Hoffman added. "But you could have a divorce case, fighting over custody, the dad puts the kid in car with no seat belt on and the mom calls it in. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Suddenly you're on the same list as the pedophile, and the employer doesn't know difference."</span><br /><br />___<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Missouri's Supreme Court, in a 2007 ruling, said the state's method of placing people on the abuse registry was unconstitutional because it allowed a listing based solely on a state investigator's determination.</span> Now, a hearing is required beforehand.<br /><br />Since the ruling, disputes have flared over how many names should be removed from the registry.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"It's a horrible thing to be on this list,"</span> said Timothy Belz, the lawyer who won the 2007 case. "You can't get a job as a teacher, a nurse. You can't volunteer for your church's nursery duty.<br /><br />"If you're a sex offender, your name doesn't go on the list until you're convicted," Belz added. "But if you're a little late getting a kid to the emergency room after he cut his finger, you could be on the list for ever."<br /><br />Belz attributed the due-process problems to zealous legislators.<br /><br />"You can't find a lawyer or judge who isn't shocked," he said. "Yet you go to the legislature and it's like pulling teeth to get it changed. All it takes is one kid to get molested, one horrible story, and the legislators just go nuts. The legislature ought to require itself to cool off."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">It is interestingly hypocritical how everyone seems to recognize that being listed on such a Child Abuse Registry is "punishment" , but refuses to see Sex Offender Registries as being "punishment". This is the only way Courts across the nation have allowed Sex Offender Registry retroactive laws to stand ; by ruling that they are not "punitive", but rather "civil' in nature.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-84502143236485780962010-04-24T17:14:00.002-04:002010-04-24T17:27:36.536-04:00Sex Offenses Common Among Troubled Vets<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9NiOEg0-SI/AAAAAAAABFA/_1f8GYPv9G0/s1600/soldierdepr.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 145px; height: 148px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9NiOEg0-SI/AAAAAAAABFA/_1f8GYPv9G0/s200/soldierdepr.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463818766799665442" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14948090">sltrib.com(Utah)</a>: Sex offenses common among troubled vets.<br /><br />In multiple federal studies conducted over the past decade of inmates in U.S. prisons, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Veterans were found to be more than twice as likely to be serving time for a sex offense as non-veteran inmates.</span><br /><br />Former Marine Mark Peterson is serving time in the Utah State Prison at Draper for the sexual abuse of a teenage girl. He staunchly denies that his service was in any way related to his crime. Convicted in 2001, Peterson was released last year -- only to return after his parole officer found he was viewing pornography, he said.<br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">(Viewing any type of pornography while on parole/probation results in arrest as a "parole/ probation violation". The pornography does not have to be illegal for this to happen.)</span><br /><br />Some therapy may be available, but Lynn Jorgensen, who helps incarcerated veterans re-enter society, said he is limited in what he can do for sex offenders. For instance, Jorgensen said, he has helped many parolees find transitional housing at veterans homes in Salt Lake City -- but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">those homes won't take vets who have been convicted of sex crimes.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-89128625511306613532010-04-24T17:04:00.002-04:002010-04-24T17:10:18.965-04:00Sex Offender Sentenced to Life for Failing to Register Loses Appeal<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_14948260">dailybreeze.com(California)</a> :Sex offender sentenced to life for failing to register loses appeal.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A man sentenced by a Torrance judge to life in prison for failing to register as a sex offender </span>lost an appeal of his sentence Friday.<br /><br />Wynford Eugene Murray sexually abused two young girls in New York <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">more than a decade ago</span> and failed to register as a sex offender when he moved to California.<br /><br />Last April, Torrance Superior Court Judge Mark Arnold sentenced Murray to the "third strike" term of 25 years to life in prison after a nonjury trial in which he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender.<br /><br />Murray claimed Arnold abused his discretion in denying his request to vacate at least one of his prior "strikes" from the New York case, but a three-justice panel from the 2nd District Court of Appeal turned down his appeal.<br /><br />Murray, a transient who had lived first in Canoga Park and then Redondo Beach, contended that he did not know until after his arrest that California law required him to register as a sex offender, the justices noted in their eight-page ruling.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0); font-style: italic;">Make no mistake: This man was sentenced to life in prison NOT because of any sex crime , but because he failed to register his address with authorities when he moved to California. Does that punishment fit that crime? Of course not. It is insanity.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-79235389886057676742010-04-24T14:33:00.002-04:002010-04-24T14:42:46.831-04:00AL: Legislature Passes Limit on Housing Sex Offenders<span style=";font-size:85%;" ><a href="http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/04/alabama_legislature_passes_lim.html">blog.al.com</a>: Alabama Legislature passes limit on housing sex offenders.<br /><br />The Alabama Legislature has given approval to a bill that would limit the number of registered sex offenders living together in Jefferson County.<br /><br />The bill, sponsored in the Senate by <a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senators/senatebios/sd019.html">Sen. Priscilla Dunn, D-Bessemer</a>, and in the House by<a href="http://www.legislature.state.al.us/house/representatives/housebios/hd058.html"> Rep. Oliver Robinson,</a> D-Birmingham, now goes to Gov. Bob Riley for his review.<br /><br />The measure would<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> bar landlords from housing more than one registered sex offender under one roof and would require offenders who live in an apartment complex to reside at least 100 yards from each other.</span><br /><br />City officials in the western Jefferson County town of Mulga asked Dunn to sponsor the bill because a boarding house there has had as many as four offenders living there. State law prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or day care. Mulga has no schools or day care facilities.<br /><br />Rosie Parker, who owns the boarding house, said she has only one registered offender at her home now, her brother. "I was trying to help them out," Parker said.<br /><br />Her brother, Samuel Washington, said it was disappointing to learn that the bill had been approved. Washington, 53, who was convicted in Texas of aggravated sexual assault, said he didn't think the bill was fair because<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> "everybody deserves a second chance at life.</span><br /><br />"I can understand how they feel, but I'm human, too," he said. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">"It creates a problem for those who are trying to resume a life."</span><br /><br />The bill would affect 122 convicted sex offenders and 23 addresses in Jefferson County that would not be in compliance if it becomes law, including apartments, hotels, a ministry and at least two boarding houses, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.<br /><br />David Gespass, a Birmingham lawyer who is a cooperating attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said he believes <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">the legislation has the potential to create a cycle because the inability to provide a residence could cause many sex offenders to fail to register, which brings additional convictions and jail time.</span><br /><br />The bill does contain some exceptions. A landlord would not be in violation if the registered sex offender is a spouse or child, or the owner of the property. The landlord would also not be in violation if a registered sex offender does not provide written notice of his prior convictions.<br /><br />Dunn said there was no opposition to the bill. It would become effective three months after it becomes law.<br />A state law that passed in 2007 doesn't allow landlords in Birmingham to house more than one registered sex offender under the same roof.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-43789018491817612522010-04-23T16:27:00.004-04:002010-04-23T17:24:25.986-04:00Visa Petitions Under the Adam Walsh Act<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9IJxZhJEkI/AAAAAAAABE4/8UX8TUS4O_A/s1600/us-visa.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9IJxZhJEkI/AAAAAAAABE4/8UX8TUS4O_A/s200/us-visa.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463440042221965890" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">While this topic is slightly removed from our primary focus, we often hear from readers asking about Visa Petitions and how they are affected by the Adam Walsh Act laws. To be honest, I am unfamiliar with how the immigration visa process works but will try to post some useful links and information below. If any reader would like to submit a clear and concise brief on how the Adam Walsh Act affects Family-Based Visa Petitions, it can be sent to <a href="mailto:constitutionalfights@yahoo.com">constitutionalfights@yahoo.com</a>.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><a href="http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AdamWalshAct072806.pdf">This memorandum</a> provides guidance for the initial implementation of the recently enacted Immigration Law Reforms to Prevent Sex Offenders from Abusing Children (Title IV of the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ248.109.pdf">Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006</a>).<br /><br />On July 27, 2006, President Bush signed into law H.R. 4772, the<a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ248.109.pdf"> Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006</a> (“Adam Walsh Act”), an Act to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.<br /><br />Section 402 of the <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ248.109.pdf">Adam Walsh Act</a> amends section 204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">prohibit U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident aliens who have been convicted of any “specified offense against a minor” from filing a family-based immigrant petition</span> (including the Form I-130 and the Petition to Classify Orphan, Form I-600A or I-600) on behalf of any beneficiary, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security determines in his<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> sole and unreviewable discretion that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary</span>. Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act also amends section 101(a)(15) of the INA <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">to remove spouses or fiancés of U.S. citizens convicted of these offenses from eligibility for “K” nonimmigrant status</span> (Form I-129F).<br /><br />The operative definition of “specified offense against a minor” is contained in section 111(7) of the Adam Walsh Act:<br /><br />“The term `specified offense against a minor' means an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:<br />(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving kidnapping.<br />(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or guardian) involving false imprisonment.<br />(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.<br />(D) Use in a sexual performance.<br />(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.<br />(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of title 18, United States Code.<br />(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child pornography.<br />(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct.<br />(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor.”<br /><br />A minor is defined as an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years.<br /><br />The <a href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ248.109.pdf">Adam Walsh Act</a> is effective on the date of enactment. It applies to all petitions pending on or after that date. Headquarters is currently reviewing this recently enacted legislation and will provide detailed guidance for implementation. In the interim, the following procedures are implemented effective this date:<br /><br />If the petitioner’s IBIS check reveals a hit for any sexual or kidnapping offense that is, or potentially may be a “specified offense against a minor” as defined above, the following actions will be taken:<br />1. A Request for Evidence will be issued for all police arrest records and court disposition documents.<br />2. The petitioner will be scheduled for fingerprinting in accordance with Center or Field Office procedures. These fingerprints will be processed without fee.<br />Adjudication of these cases will be suspended pending further guidance, however these petitions may be denied on grounds not related to the above.<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Resources:<br /><a href="http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AdamWalshAct072806.pdf">2006 USCIS Memorandum</a> (PDF)<br /><a href="http://familybasedimmigration.com/forum/showthread.php?t=361">Family Based Immigration Forum</a><br /><a href="http://visajourney.com/forums/topic/210048-adam-walsh-act/">VisaJourney Forum</a><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />From an immigration attorney commercial site:<br /><a href="http://www.usimmigrationlawyers.com/resources/immigration-law/us-visa/family-based-fiance-visa-walsh.htm">Prohibitions Under the Walsh Act</a><br /><br />A petitioner who has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor is not simply prohibited from filing on behalf of a minor child. The petitioner is prohibited from filing on behalf of “any” family-based beneficiary under sections 204(a)(1)(A)(i) and 204(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act or in accordance with section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">“Any beneficiary” includes a spouse, a fiancé(e), a parent, an unmarried child, an unmarried son or daughter over 21 years of age, an orphan, a married son or daughter, a brother or sister, and any derivative beneficiary permitted to apply for an immigrant visa on the basis of his or her relationship to the principal beneficiary of a family-based petition</span><br /><br />Section 401 of the Adam Walsh Act amends section 237(a)(2)(A) of the INA by adding a new subparagraph (v). Under new section 237(a)(2)(A)(v), an alien who is convicted under new 18 USC 2250, for failing to register as a sex offender, is subject to removal as a deportable alien.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Approved Family Based Petitions May Be Revoked Under Adam Walsh Act:</span><br />If, at any time prior to adjustment of status or consular processing, USCIS becomes aware that the petitioner has a conviction for a specified offense against a minor, it will revoke the approved family-based immigrant visa petition or reopen and reconsider the I-129F.<br /><br />Further, the approved immigrant visa petitions may be reopened for “good and sufficient cause” under Section 205 of the Act. Revocation of the approval is allowed under 8 CFR 205.2 if the petitioner has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor and USCIS finds that the petitioner poses risk to the beneficiary. Therefore, USCIS conducts additional IBIS checks on the petitioner of the family-based immigrant petition at the time the beneficiary adjusts status. Pursuant to 8 CFR 103.5(a)(5)(ii) USCIS may reopen and reconsider the decision on I-129F if the petitioner has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor and USCIS determines that the petitioner poses any risk to the beneficiary.<br /><br />What is a "Specified Offense Against a Minor"?<br /><br />The phrase “specified offense against a minor” in the Adam Walsh Act is defined broadly to take into account that these offenses may be named differently in a wide variety of Federal, State and foreign criminal statutes. The statutory list is not composed of specific statutory violations.<br /><br />As defined in the relevant criminal statute, for a conviction to be deemed a specified offense against a minor, the essential elements of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted must be substantially similar to an offense defined as such in the Adam Walsh Act. USCIS will issue a Request for Evidence (RFE) for all police arrest records and court disposition documents and schedule the petitioner for fingerprints if the petitioner’s IBIS check reveals a hit for any offense that is or may be a “specified offense against a minor” as defined above.<br /><br />If there is an IBIS hit or other indication that a lawful permanent resident petitioner may have a conviction for a specified offense against a minor as defined in the Adam Walsh Act, the USCIS will suspend the case adjudication. If the offense meets the definition of an egregious public safety threat, USCIS will refer the case to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for initiation of removal proceedings against petitioner.<br /><br />If the petition has been approved or is being processed and there is an IBIS hit, USCIS will issue a RFE or Notice of Intent to Revoke (NOIR) and request all police arrest records and court disposition documents. If the petitioner was previously identified as posing risk, USCIS will obtain petitioner’s current rap sheet.<br /><br />If the petitioner fails to respond to the RFE or NOIR, the petition is denied or revoked accordingly. If the fingerprint results and the evidence submitted in response to an RFE or NOIR indicate that the petitioner was not convicted of a specified offense against a minor as defined by the Adam Walsh Act, USCIS will process the petition in accordance with 8 CFR 204.<br /><br />If, after review of the fingerprint results and the evidence submitted in response to the RFE or NOIR USCIS is not sure whether the petitioner’s conviction is a specified offense against a minor, or the criminal case against the petitioner is still pending and its disposition is unknown, USCIS will send petitioner’s file for supervisory review and opinion. In some cases, ICE may decide to initiate removal proceedings against any lawful permanent resident who is deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(v) of the INA (conviction for having failed to register as a sex offender).<br /><br />If, after review of the fingerprint results the evidence submitted in response to the RFE or NOIR, USCIS finds that the petitioner has been convicted of a specified offense against a minor as defined by the Adam Walsh Act, USCIS will determine whether the petitioner poses a risk to the beneficiary.<br /><br />Procedures for Determining whether Petitioner “Poses No Risk” to Beneficiary:<br /><br />The main purpose of section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act is to ensure that an intended alien beneficiary is not placed at risk of harm from the person seeking to facilitate the alien’s immigration to the United States. USCIS, therefore, may not approve a family-based petition (I-130 or I-129F) if the petitioner has a conviction for a specified offense against a minor unless USCIS first determines that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary on whose behalf a petition was filed. Under section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act, only the Secretary has this discretion and the “sole and unreviewable” authority to decide whether a petitioner poses any risk to the intended beneficiary. The phrase “poses no risk to the beneficiary” means that the petitioner must pose no risk to the safety or well-being of the principal or derivative beneficiaries.<br /><br />Evidence of Rehabilitation:<br /><br />We recommend submission of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation if the petitioner is implicated by the Adam Walsh Act. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">Petitioner must demonstrate by clear evidence and beyond any reasonable doubt, that he or she poses no risk to the safety and well-being of his or her intended beneficiary.</span> The initially filed petition or response to an RFE or NOIR must include whatever evidence and legal argument the petitioner wants USCIS to consider in making its risk determination. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to:<br /><br /> *Certified records indicating successful completion of counseling or rehabilitation programs;<br /> * Certified evaluations conducted by licensed professionals, such as psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, or clinical social workers, which attest to the degree of a petitioner’s rehabilitation or behavior modification;<br /> * Evidence demonstrating intervening good and exemplary service to the community or in the uniformed services;<br /> * Certified copies of police reports and court records relating to the offense (the court records must include the original indictment or other charging document, any superseding charging document, any pre-sentencing report, and the conviction judgment); and<br /> * News accounts and trial transcripts describing the nature and circumstances surrounding the petitioner’s specified offense(s) against a minor and any other criminal, violent, or abusive behavior incidents, arrests, and convictions.<br /><br />The determination of whether a petitioner’s evidence is credible, and the weight and probative value to be given that evidence, shall be within the <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sole and unreviewable discretion of USCIS.</span><br /><br />Factors USCIS Considers in Adjudication Process:<br /><br />USCIS considers all known factors that are relevant to determining whether the petitioner poses any risk to the safety and well-being of the beneficiary. Here is the non-exclusive list of the factors:<br /><br />1. The nature and severity of the petitioner’s specified offense against a minor, including all facts and circumstances underlying the offense;<br />2. The petitioner’s criminal history;<br />3. The nature, severity, and mitigating circumstances of any arrests, convictions, or history of alcohol or substance abuse, sexual or child abuse, domestic violence, or other violent or criminal behavior that may pose a risk to the safety or well-being of the principal beneficiary or any derivative beneficiary;<br />4. The relationship of the petitioner to the principal beneficiary and any derivative beneficiary;<br />5. The age and, if relevant, the gender of the beneficiary;<br />6. Whether the petitioner and beneficiary will be residing either in the same household or within close proximity to one another; and<br />7. The degree of rehabilitation or behavior modification that may alleviate any risk posed by the petitioner to the beneficiary, evidenced by the successful completion of appropriate counseling or rehabilitation programs and the significant passage of time between incidence of violent, criminal, or abusive behavior and the submission of the petition.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The USCIS automatically presumes that risk exists in any case where the intended beneficiary is a child</span>, irrespective of the nature and severity of the petitioner’s specified offense and other past criminal acts and irrespective of whether the petitioner and beneficiary will be residing either in the same household or within close proximity to one another.<br /><br />During the application process our client has clear understanding that<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the burden is upon him/her to rebut and overcome the presumption of risk by providing credible and persuasive evidence of rehabilitation and any other relevant evidence that proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he or she poses no risk to the intended child beneficiary</span>.<br /><br />In cases where none of the intended beneficiaries are children, USCIS closely examines the petitioner’s specified offense and other past criminal acts to determine whether the petitioner poses any risk to the safety or well-being of the adult beneficiary. It considers past acts of spousal abuse or other acts of violence. The fact that a petitioner’s past criminal acts may have been perpetrated only against children or that the petitioner and beneficiary will not be residing either in the same household or within close proximity to one another may not, in and of themselves, are sufficient to convince USCIS that the petitioner poses no risk to the adult beneficiary.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">In case of an adult beneficiary, our client is advised that the burden is upon the petitioner to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he or she poses no risk to the intended adult beneficiary.</span> Therefore, it is important to prepare and present documents in the light most favorable to the petitioner that the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If no such evidence is presented, USCIS will deny the application. </span><br /><br />If the USCIS adjudicating officer is uncertain as to whether the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary, or if the adjudicator is finding it difficult to articulate the factual basis for the denial, the office will consult with his/her supervisor and/or USCIS counsel. USCIS cannot approve the petition subject to Adam Walsh Act without guidance from the USCIS’ headquarters.<br /><br />Denials under Adam Walsh Act:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">The denial or revocation of orphan and fiancé cases may be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office</span> (“AAO”). Section 402 of the Adam Walsh Act does not affect the AAO’s jurisdiction in orphan and fiancé/fiancée cases.<br /><br />This information is general in nature and is not specific legal advice.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-67859791602660769832010-04-23T15:51:00.003-04:002010-04-23T16:10:07.268-04:00US Supreme Court Denies Kentucky AG Petition<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9H74VGqX2I/AAAAAAAABEw/DPHcOMa2M60/s1600/denied.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 122px; height: 122px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9H74VGqX2I/AAAAAAAABEw/DPHcOMa2M60/s200/denied.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463424768133455714" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;">On October 1, 2009, <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/ky-supreme-court-strikes-down-sex-offender-law/">The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled</a> that a law limiting where registered sex offenders can live <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">cannot apply to those who committed offenses before July 12, 2006, the day the law was implemented.</span> The law prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, daycare centers and schools, and changed how the distance is measured.<br /><br />The court, in a decision dated Oct. 1, said the law is <a href="http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/kentucky-supreme-court-ruling-ex-post-facto/">punitive in nature and violates the ex post facto clause in the U.S. Constitution</a>, which prohibits states from passing laws that increase punishment for old crimes.<br /><a href="http://ag.ky.gov/contact.htm"><br />Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway</a> tried to resist this ruling and continued to enforce the law retroactively (and illegally) while he petitioned the United States Supreme Court for further review. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-775.htm">His petition was denied </a>by SCOTUS on March 8, 2010.<br /><br />Case Nos. 2006-SC-000347-CL<br />Kentucky Attorney General's Office (502)-696-5342<br />1024 Capitol Center Drive <br />Frankfort, KY 40601 <br />jason.moore@ag.ky.gov</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-71414143371122274902010-04-23T15:25:00.003-04:002010-04-23T15:35:16.676-04:00NJ Lawmaker Pleads Guilty in Child Porn Case<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9H1coIjwJI/AAAAAAAABEo/dsD1VmqDB5M/s1600/CohenNeil1.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 122px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9H1coIjwJI/AAAAAAAABEo/dsD1VmqDB5M/s200/CohenNeil1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463417695135580306" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-04-12-lawmaker-child-porn_N.htm">usatoday.com</a>: N.J. lawmaker pleads guilty in child porn case.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">More hypocrites...</span><br /><br />Trenton, N.J. (AP) — <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">A New Jersey lawmaker who championed legislation fighting child pornography pleaded guilty Monday to distributing nude images of underage girls.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_M._Cohen">Neil Cohen, 59</a>, acknowledged viewing and printing images meant for sexual gratification from a computer in his former legislative office. He left at least one image at a receptionist's desk, leading to the investigation and charges.<br /><br />Cohen pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child by distributing child pornography and <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">could be sent to state prison for five years when he is sentenced on July 12.</span><br /><br />Under terms of a plea agreement, Cohen <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">will have to register as a sex offender under Megan's law and be subject to lifetime supervision by the Parole Board when he is released from prison.</span> He agreed never to seek public office again and to pay at least $1,800 in fines. His use of social networking websites also will be restricted. Cohen, an attorney who now lives in Paramus, likely will be disbarred.<br /><br />Cohen and his lawyers left court without commenting. Prosecutors also declined to comment. Looking gaunt and sporting a full beard, Cohen answered the judge's questions succinctly in a low, barely audible voice.<br /><br />"That's correct, sir," Cohen said when asked if he intended to plead guilty. Cohen acknowledged being on medications but told the judge the drugs did not impair his judgment.<br /><br />In exchange for the guilty plea, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">other charges against the former assemblyman were dropped</span>. Cohen faced up to 30 years in prison if convicted of official misconduct and child pornography charges.<br /><br />Cohen was accused of <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">using state computers in his Union County legislative office to view, print and duplicate images of underage girls.</span> The staff member who discovered the photos told the two lawmakers who shared the office with Cohen, Sen. Ray Lesniak and Assemblyman Joe Cryan. They reported Cohen to state authorities in July 2008.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-78581855521249843172010-04-23T15:16:00.003-04:002010-04-23T15:38:16.358-04:00Police Officer Sentenced as Sex Offender<span style="font-size:85%;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9HydAbQ4PI/AAAAAAAABEg/8jeQ1kwOenc/s1600/toddmonroealabama.JPG"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 179px; height: 134px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9HydAbQ4PI/AAAAAAAABEg/8jeQ1kwOenc/s200/toddmonroealabama.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463414403121602802" border="0" /></a><a href="http://www.panhandleparade.com/index.php/mbb/article/former_police_officer_sentenced_as_sex_offender/mbb7722751/">panhandleparade.com</a>: Police Officer Sentenced as Sex Offender.<br /><br />Walton County, FL. - A former Alabama and Florida law enforcement officer initially arrested several years ago during a “Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator” sting has been sentenced. Walton County Circuit Judge Kelvin Wells <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">sentenced Todd Monroe Spikes to ten-year’ sex offender probation.</span><br /><br />Last month, the 44-year-old pled “no contest” to the charges of lewd and lascivious exhibition with the victim less than 16, and using the computer to seduce and solicit a child. Spikes was one of 21 men who police said had sexually explicit online chats with decoys posing as children. He had several online chats with a police decoy who was posing as a 13-year-old girl. He drove five hours to meet with her at a home in Flagler Beach, just outside of Daytona Beach, Florida. Cameras followed Spikes as he drove around the decoy’s house. He was stopped several blocks away where authorities found several loaded weapons in his SUV. His vehicle also contained rope and a boat anchor.<br /><br />The charges were eventually transferred to Walton County, because the investigation revealed that he used the computer in Walton County to solicit the acts. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">At the time of his arrest, Spikes was working as an officer for the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Florala+Police+Department&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Police+Department&hnear=Florala&cid=12295950902971804294">Florala Police Department</a></span>. Prior to that, he had spent time with the <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps/place?gl=us&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Samson,+Alabama+Police+Department&fb=1&gl=us&hq=Police+Department&hnear=Samson,+Alabama&cid=18062474229201015016">Samson, Alabama Police Department</a>, the <a href="http://www.road-police.com/police/Alabama/Geneva/property_630/police.html">Geneva, Alabama Police Department</a>, the <a href="http://www.defuniakspringspolice.net/">DeFuniak Springs Police Department</a>, and the<a href="http://www.waltonso.org/"> Walton County Sheriff’s Office.<br /></a><br />Following his sentencing, Spikes came to the Walton County Sheriff’s Office to register as a sex offender.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">If this man was not a police officer, his sentence would be much greater than a ten-year probation period.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-69829856883046825242010-04-23T15:07:00.002-04:002010-04-23T15:13:42.523-04:00GA: Revisions to Sex Offender Law<span style="font-size:85%;"><a href="http://blogs.ajc.com/gold-dome-live/2010/04/21/senate-passes-sex-offender-bill/?cxntfid=blogs_gold_dome_live">AtlantaJournalConstitution</a>: Senate passes sex offender bill.<br /><br />In response to several major court challenges, the Senate passed a bill Wednesday that would make several key changes in the state’s sex offender registration law. The full Senate passed <a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb571.htm">House Bill 571</a>, which would clarify the classification of sexual offenders and re-examine residency restrictions on certain sex offenders. The bill passed 45-0.<br /><br />“This is an important bill. <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">We were obviously facing a series of legal challenges in federal courts</span>,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Seth Harp (R-Midland). “We will correct problems that the federal courts identified.”<br /><br />At issue is the level of a so-called sex crime. In March, for example, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld a provision of the state’s<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> sex offender registry law that requires some people to register as sex offenders even if they have not committed a sex crime.</span><br /><br />Jake Rainer tried to get off the list after he was placed on it following a drug robbery. In 2000, an 18-year-old Rainer robbed a 17-year-old girl in Gwinnett County who was going to sell him marijuana. Rainer and three friends picked up the girl, drove her to a cul-de-sac, stole the marijuana and left her there. In getting a false imprisonment charge, Rainer also had to register as a sex offender, meaning that he cannot live or work within 1,000 feet of any place children gather, such as schools, churches and parks.<br /><br />Georgia has one of the toughest sex-offender laws in the nation, but <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">courts have continued to chip away at it.</span><br />Judges, for example, have granted relief for offenders who own homes, who are homeless and who have gotten mandatory life sentences for failing to register a second time.<br /><br />What is apparently a controversial provision in some camps <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">would allow some low-level sex offenders to come off the registry. </span>Teenagers, for example, who have had sex with younger teens or classmates have also been labeled as sex offenders in some cases. “I think they’re entitled to a shot at convincing the court they’re rehabilitated” and will not be a further danger, </span><span style="font-size:85%;">House Speaker David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"> said.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-57810406672365188292010-04-22T17:58:00.004-04:002010-04-22T18:19:17.718-04:00Sex Offender Felon Voting Rights<span style="font-size:85%;">Are you a sex offender felon or do you know one who thinks he cannot vote? Many do not know that they do still have the right to vote in their states. In Ohio for example, unless incarcerated, any felon has the right to vote. We strongly urge you to vote and be active politically if you have Felon Voting Rights in your state. The trend over the past decade has been to relax such felon voting restrictions, so check with your state to find out if you can vote. We provide the information sources below but you should confirm this information with your state laws.<br /><br /><a href="http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286">felonvoting.procon.org: State Felon Voting Laws</a>(Current as of Apr. 08, 2010)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aclu.org/state-legislative-and-policy-reform-advance-voting-rights-formerly-incarcerated-persons-2008">ACLU: Voting Rights for People with Criminal Records: 2008 State Legislative and Policy Changes</a> (This is from 2008 and may have changed)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9DH7nEcj7I/AAAAAAAABEY/AKZZQ3PTVmA/s1600/mapfelonvoting.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 188px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_i4EFGoLwOPo/S9DH7nEcj7I/AAAAAAAABEY/AKZZQ3PTVmA/s200/mapfelonvoting.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5463086174914252722" border="0" /></a></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />examples:<br /><a href="http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/41770/">superiortelegram.com</a>: Felons can vote in Wisconsin after they have completed their probation or parole.<br /><a href="http://media.www.oxyweekly.com/media/storage/paper1200/news/2010/04/21/Opinion/Recent.Felon.Disenfranchisement.Decision.Is.Constitutional-3909759.shtml">media.www.oxyweekly.com</a>:This January, in the landmark case Farrakhan vs. Gregoire, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a Washington state law that prohibits convicted felons from voting until they have finished their probation and parole. In this decision, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Washington state to disenfranchise felons, because a disproportionate percentage of minorities are prosecuted and convicted of felonies. Therefore, according to the court, the disenfranchisement ordinance violated the right to vote regardless of race outlined in the Fifteenth Amendment.<br /><br /><a href="http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ending_the_eternal_sentence">prospect.org</a>: Ex-felons are routinely disenfranchised due to confusion over state laws. Now, Congress is considering a bill that would restore voting rights to prisoners as soon as they pay their debt to society.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5162569870390195419.post-14066615956126041692010-04-22T15:59:00.007-04:002010-04-22T16:27:43.920-04:00Ohio Supreme Court to Decide if Old Cases Should be Held to New Tougher Rules<span style="font-size:85%;">Wednesday April 21, 2010: Ohio Supreme Court Oral Arguments were held today in the case of:<a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-2031.pdf"> </a><a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-2031.pdf">Robert Gildersleeve et al. v. State of Ohio -Case number 09-1086 - Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals.</a><a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-ohio-2031.pdf"> </a>(PDF)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/8/2009/2009-Ohio-2031.pdf">Ohio Supreme Court Journal Entry and Opinion.</a> (PDF)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/story/25279">wksu.org</a>: Thousand of new hearings may be ordered for sex offenders -<br />Ohio Supreme Court to decide if old cases should be held to new, tougher rules.<br /><br /></span><span class="storyShortCopy" style="font-size:85%;">The Ohio Supreme Court will decide if people convicted before Ohio adopted a tougher sex-offender law are subject to those tougher penalties. It heard arguments today in a case that could affect hundreds of courts, and thousands of offenders and the neighborhoods in which they live. </span><!-- / story details --> <p class="shim20"> <span class="caption" style="font-size:85%;">Click to Listen</span></p><p style="visibility: visible;" id="player_9837"><span style="font-size:85%;"><object data="http://www.wksu.org/tools/mediaplayer/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="280" height="20"><param value="opaque" name="wmode"><param value="#ffffff" name="bgcolor"><param value="file=http://www.wksu.org/news/daily/2010/04/21/28060.mp3" name="flashvars"><param value="true" name="allowfullscreen"></object></span></p><script type="text/javascript"> var FO = { movie:"http://www.wksu.org/tools/mediaplayer/player.swf", wmode: "opaque", width:"280", height:"20", majorversion:"7", build:"0", bgcolor:"#ffffff", allowfullscreen:"true", flashvars: "file=http://www.wksu.org/news/daily/2010/04/21/28060.mp3" }; UFO.create(FO, "player_9837");</script><span style="font-size:85%;">Other options:<br /><img src="http://www.wksu.org/graphics/audio-icon.gif" alt="" width="13" height="9" /> <a href="http://www.wksu.org/cgi-bin/raplay?news/daily/2010/04/21/28060.rm" class="copy10">Realplayer</a> / <img src="http://www.wksu.org/graphics/audio-icon.gif" alt="" width="13" height="9" /> <a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/listen/wm/news/daily/2010/04/21/28060.wma" class="copy10">Windows Media</a> / <img src="http://www.wksu.org/graphics/audio-icon.gif" alt="" width="13" height="9" /> <a href="http://www.wksu.org/news/daily/2010/04/21/28060.mp3" class="copy10">MP3 Download</a> </span><span class="copy10" style="font-size:85%;">(1:15) </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span> <!-- br clear="both" / --> <!----> <p style="font-family: arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: 17px;"> </p><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Supreme Court case summary:</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><h2 style=""><span style="font-size:85%;">Does ‘Adam Walsh Act’ Require New Hearing to Exempt Pre-2008 Sex Offender from Community Notification?</span></h2><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><em><strong>When Sentencing Court Found Notification not Required Under Pre-2008 Law</strong></em></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>Robert Gildersleeve et al. v. State of Ohio</em>, Case no. 2009-1086<br />8<sup>th</sup> District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">ISSUE: In cases where a<span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> defendant was sentenced prior to Jan. 1, 2008, for a sexually related crime, and where the sentencing court determined at a hearing that under the pre-2008 version of Ohio’s sex-offender statute the defendant was not subject to community notification</span>, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">do amendments to the law that took effect in 2008 require that pre-2008 offenders who have been reclassified as Tier III offenders must undergo a new hearing to reestablish their exemption from community notification? </span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">BACKGROUND: Effective Jan. 1, 2008, the General Assembly amended Ohio’s former sex offender registration and community notification statutes to conform them with the federal Adam Walsh Act (AWA). Under the amended Ohio statutes, thousands of persons who had been classified as lower-level sex offenders under the pre-2008 version of the law were reclassified as Tier III (highest level) sex offenders. The new provisions require that, after Jan. 1, 2008, 1) all Tier III offenders must register with local law enforcement agencies every 90 days for life, and 2) sheriffs must provide regular notices regarding the identity, residence, place of employment and other information about Tier III offenders to neighbors, schools and specified others in the communities where the offender lives and works.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">However, a separate provision in the 2008 rewrite of the law, R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), specifically exempts a Tier III offender from the requirement of community notification <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">(but not the duty to register)</span>: “if a court finds at a hearing ... that the person would not be subject to notification” under the <em>previous</em> version of the sex offender statute (i.e. the version that was in effect from 2002 through 2007).</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">This case involves a group of nine people, including Robert Gildersleeve, who were convicted and sentenced prior to Jan. 1, 2008 as sex offenders. In each of their cases, the sentencing court held a required hearing and determined that the defendant was not a sexual predator or a high-risk habitual sex offender, and therefore, under the pre-2008 version of the sex offender statute, was subject to registration but was not subject to community notification. Following enactment of the Ohio AWA, each of the plaintiffs received a notice from the attorney general’s office informing him that he had been reclassified as a Tier III sex offender and would from that date forward be subject to <em>both</em> the more stringent registration requirement <em>and the community notification</em> <em>requirement </em>imposed on Tier III offenders by the AWA.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">The plaintiffs filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking a judgment that 1) <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">retroactive application of the AWA to offenders who had already been classified under the pre-2008 sex offender statute was unconstitutional</span>; and 2) even if retroactive application of the AWA to them was constitutional, they were entitled to relief from community notification under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) because <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> each of them had already undergone a hearing and been found not to be subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the statute.</span> The trial court ruled that retroactive application of the AWA to previously classified sex offenders was constitutional, and also held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief from community notification.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Gildersleeve and his co-plaintiffs appealed. On review, the 8<sup>th</sup> District Court of Appeals affirmed that the AWA was constitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">but held that they were entitled to relief from community notification under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2), because the courts that sentenced them had judicially determined that they were not subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the law.</span></span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Both parties sought Supreme Court review of the portion of the 8<sup>th</sup> District’s ruling unfavorable to them. The Court accepted Gildersleeve’s appeal regarding retroactive application of the AWA and held that appeal pending the Court’s ruling in a similar case that has already been argued but not announced (<em>State v. Bodyke</em>). The Court agreed to hear arguments on the state’s claim that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) does not provide “automatic” relief from community notification for any past offender who was found not subject to community notification under the prior version of the statute at the time of his original classification.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> Attorneys for the state argue that R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) exempts an offender from the requirement of community notification under the AWA only if a court has conducted a <em>de novo</em><em> </em></span><span style="font-size:85%;">(new) hearing at which it considers 11 criteria set forth in the 2008 statute, and has made a new and independent finding that the offender would not have been subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the sex offender law. </span><span style="font-size:85%;">They point out that the hearing requirement in R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) is written in the present rather than the past tense, which they say indicates legislative intent that courts considering appeals by pre-2008 offenders </span><span style="font-size:85%;"><em>should not</em> rely on the court proceedings conducted at the time of that person’s original classification, but rather <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">should conduct a new and independent review of the statutory criteria and make a new determination regarding the offender’s likelihood of reoffending.</span></span> </p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span><p><span style="font-size:85%;">Attorneys for Gildersleeve and the other plaintiffs point out that <span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);"> the hearing criteria set forth in R.C. 2950.11(B)(2) are virtually identical to the criteria that were considered in determining at the time of their original classification that they were not subject to community notification under the pre-2008 version of the statute.</span> They argue that in cases involving offenders who were classified under the former statute, “a court” has already conducted a hearing at which the statutory criteria have been considered, and has ruled that the offender was not subject to community control under the pre-2008 law. They assert that interpreting the law to require an entire new hearing at which the same criteria are applied to make exactly the same legal determination would be redundant and wasteful of judicial resources, and also contrary to the doctrine of <em>res judicata</em> (that issues decided by a court and not appealed should not later be relitigated).</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com