Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A federal judge has ruled that a state law requiring sex offenders to reveal their Internet screen names and passwords to the Utah Department of Corrections violates the constitutional rights of a Clearfield man.
U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell concluded that the man - identified as John Doe in court documents - retains his First Amendment right to anonymous online speech. The ruling bars the state Corrections Department from requiring Doe to reveal his online identifiers, which include names used in Internet chat rooms and instant messaging.
The judge stressed that her decision, which was handed down Thursday, applies only to Doe. She also noted that an analysis of the constitutionality of the law would be different for people who - unlike Doe - are on parole for their sex crimes.
The ruling is apparently the first in the nation to address whether sex offenders have the First Amendment right to speak anonymously online. It has no effect on the requirement that sex offenders register with the state.
The decision centers on a state law that took effect on July 1 requiring Utah's nearly 7,000 registered sex offenders to turn over certain Internet information, including screen names and passwords to social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
It is unclear if the decision could allow others on the sex registry to challenge the requirement once they are no longer on parole. The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing the ruling.
In her ruling, Campbell pointed out that nothing in the new law prevents the Corrections Department from linking protected anonymous online speech to a registrant and said that investigators have other tools, such as subpoenas, to unmask suspects in Internet sex crimes. In addition, she wrote, legislators could amend the law if the state wants Doe's Internet information strictly for law enforcement purposes.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
DaytonDailyNews : Heck, aide admit liability for violating law.
WHIO TV: Local Prosecutor Admits To Federal Law Violations.
(25 Sept 2008) Just months after the Ohio Attorney General was forced to resign amidst sex and corruption charges, Montgomery County Prosecutor, Mathias H. Heck Jr. admitted to corruption today. These are two Ohio officials who are responsible for enforcing the Adam Walsh Act /SORNA laws in Ohio, which violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.
DAYTON — Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias H. Heck Jr. and his administrative assistant, Greg Flannagan, admitted liability for violating federal law that prohibits certain government employees from participating in political activity, the Office of Special Counsel said Thursday, Sept. 25.
The special counsel's investigation revealed that Heck routinely conveyed his expectation that subordinates contribute money to the local Democratic Party and time to political campaigns, in defiance of federal law. The special counsel charged that Heck and Flannagan used their official authority to interfere with or affect the results of elections, the office of special counsel said.
Heck admitted that he solicited contributions for local Democratic Party fundraisers from six employees of the Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office. Flannagan admitted collecting the cash and checks for these fundraisers from prosecutor's office employees," the special counsel's office said. "Although Mr. Heck denied knowing that the Hatch Act prohibited the solicitation of political contributions from employees, as both an attorney and a long-time elected official, he should have known that whenever public employers place conditions on public employment requiring employees to become involved in partisan political activity, they put at risk the basic freedoms of speech that are protected by our Constitution."
"The people and employees of the prosecutor's office expect and deserve more from their elected officials," said U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch. "Politicization of government offices and pressuring subordinates to contribute to political causes are testaments to why Congress enacted this law and are behaviors that simply will not be tolerated."
As part of the settlement, Heck agreed not to seek employment with either a different state or local (county) agency for a period of 18 months unless such employment is to an elective office. Flannagan agreed to accept a five-day suspension without pay.
In consideration for their admissions of liability and their agreement to accept these penalties, the Special Counsel has agreed to dismiss the complaints. The motion for dismissal is currently pending review before a judge. After the judge dismisses the case, if either Heck or Flannagan fail to live up to the plea agreement, the Office of Special Counsel may refile and seek to have them prosecuted.
The Hatch Act strictly prohibits some state and local employees who have duties in connection with federally funded programs from being candidates in partisan elections. Until 2007, the county prosecutor's office, with Heck as prosecutor, received federal funds to support some of its enforcement programs.
The penalty for a proven violation of the act by a state or local employee normally is removal of the employee from his/her position by the state/local agency and debarment from state/local employment for the following eighteen months, or forfeiture of federal grant funds by the state/local agency in an amount equal to two years of the salary of the employee. However, because MCPO no longer receives federal funds, the available options for a meaningful penalty in these cases were limited.
This man should be removed immediately from his elected position and disbarred ! Call his office at 937-225-5757 and insist that he resign! And call the Ohio Ethics Commission to complain at http://www.ethics.ohio.gov/, 800 589 5256 - Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 202 482 9300 - US office of Government Ethics, 800 854 2824 - US Office of Special Counsel
Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office: http://www.mcpo.com/
Mathias Heck profile: http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/mathias_h_heck_sept_oct_2006.html
Mathias Heck Political Fund: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/mathias_h_heck_jr_campaign_fund.asp
wlwt.com Cincinnati : New School Could Have Sex Offenders As Neighbors.
This is yet another example of societal hysteria and inane legislation. They decide to build a new school in a bad neighborhood and now want to remove any nearby sex offender from this bad neighborhood and from the adjacent homeless shelter. See video below.
CINCINNATI -- When the new $62-million School for the Creative and Performing Arts opens in Over-the-Rhine next year, it will have 1,300 students from across the city. It could also have as many as 19 sex offenders living nearby.
"Well, it's outrageous. It concerns me and I'm sure it concerns most parents," Cincinnati City Councilman Jeff Berding said. Ten of them live within a quarter-mile of the school, while nine more told authorities that they live across the street at the Drop Inn Center, a homeless shelter.
"There are laws on the books that we should enforce to make sure this can't happen," Berding said. (But these laws have been ruled to be unconstitutional, Jeff.)
But the law in question won't allow it. That's because the 19 men committed their crimes before passage of the current law that bans them from coming within 1,000 feet of schools. That means those 19 sex offenders are exempt from the law, and unless they commit another crime, cannot be forced to move.
Meanwhile, the Drop Inn Center's executive director said that the nine men who said they live at the center don't live there. "We do not house sex offenders at all. It's against the law," Pat Clifford said. (Oh really? I thought the registries were a sure-fire way to track all sex offenders...hmm)
"Does a sex offender go to the public library downtown? Can you say, yes or no, whether a sex offender has been in a public library? You don't know. You can't prove yes or you can't prove no. Is a sex offender in Washington Park right now? I can't prove it. It's a public place," he said.
Previous studies have shown that despite laws requiring offenders to register their address, the address given can easily be wrong. Some have even registered parking lots near the Ohio River as their home.
Cincinnati Public Schools said they work closely with Cincinnati and Hamilton County to ensure the safety and security of school children. (which is really the whole crux of the issue. Parents need to take their own responsibility to protect their children from all kinds of dangers - not limited to sex offenders)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Plainfield, Indiana has won the latest round in the long-running lawsuit filed by a convicted sex offender who was banned from the town’s parks. The Indiana Court of Appeals today released a 20-page ruling that upholds the town’s 2002 ordinance prohibiting persons on the state registry of sex offenders from going into Plainfield parks and recreation facilities.
While the ban on sex offenders in the parks does have a punitive aspect, the court said it is not unconstitutional, as the plaintiff, identified only as John Doe, tried to claim in his suit.
The appeals court said Plainfield did not violate the portion of the Indiana Constitution that guarantees rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone.
Plainfield Town Manager Rich Carlucci said today that the purpose of the ban on registered sex offenders in the parks is to keep them away from children playing in the park.
The appeals court decision upholds a ruling in March this year by Hendricks Superior Court Judge Robert W. Freese, who had granted summary judgment for Plainfield and upheld the town’s ordinance.
Doe and his son visited Plainfield parks and recreation areas in 2004 and 2005, according to the court.
Doe sued Plainfield in November 2005, which began nearly three years of twists and turns in the legal case.
This is unbelievable; making walking in a park illegal for certain groups of people is outrageously unconstitutional in every way.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
September 11, 2008
Sex offender residency restrictions effectively banish these locally undesirable and dangerous individuals from our communities because we fear that they may reoffend in our neighborhoods. The practical effect of banishment through residency restrictions must be understood in the context that there are few places in modern day America to which a sex offender may be banished that is isolated from the rest of society. Rather than being excluded and thrust into some undeveloped wilderness, sex offenders are banished through residency restrictions to neighboring counties or states and into poor, minority neighborhoods where they often live in boarding houses with other sex offenders. Federalism concerns arise when states or municipalities attempt to exclude hazardous waste disposal from within the state, and judicial and legislative efforts to banish sex offenders to other states may also run afoul of Dormant Commerce Clause principles, which operate to discourage states from such protectionist activities.
Banishing sex offenders through residential restrictions, both legislative and private, impacts individual liberty, our national structure, and social policy considerations. Although most sex offenses are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victims, rather than by strangers, our public policy approach has been to focus on the stranger sex offender. This Article offers a legal analysis of the adverse impacts these restrictions impose on the constitutional rights of the sex offenders and the rights of our communities, which for economic or political limitations do not have the appropriate representation to mitigate these consequences. Finally, because there is not yet evidence to support the efficacy of residency restrictions on sex offender recidivism, this Article concludes that state and local legislators should seriously reexamine the current trend of using residency restrictions to address concerns about sex offender recidivism. Instead, public policy decision makers should look toward alternatives, such as individualized risk assessment and management of these individuals, so that public resources can be properly directed to confine, monitor, and treat those sex offenders most likely to commit serious reoffenses.
Adam Walsh Act mandates sex offender lists, but some say it’s unconstitutional.
Two years ago, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act.
Included in the Walsh Act is the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which establishes a national sex offender registry and creates three classifications of sex offenders. The most serious group is required to register within three days after moving to a new state or face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The law also makes it mandatory for states to maintain an online registry accessible to the public.
Most federal courts—spurning critics who contend that Congress exceeded its authority by encroaching on state and local control—have upheld SORNA.
But at least two courts this year have sided with the critics and invalidated some or all of the registry law. In both rulings, the courts referred back to a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases from the 1990s that limited the federal government’s reach into state law. Meanwhile, a third federal court temporarily halted the new law until it had a chance to hear arguments on the issue.
More is at stake than just the sex offender registries, observers say. Americans have become accustomed to national crime registries, and courts could throw them into doubt. “Not surprisingly, given our increasing sense of informational entitlement and disdain for criminal offenders, we are seeing registration and notification laws spread to other subgroups, such as domestic abusers,” says Florida State University law professor Wayne A. Logan, author of the forthcoming book Knowledge as Power: A History of Criminal Registration Laws in America.
Also up for grabs is the future of the U.S. Supreme Court’s line of federalism cases.
...The Walsh Act is the most far-reaching and may present the perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to sink its teeth into such laws, Logan says.
The act “represents a zenith in federal demands on states with respect to registration and community notification,” he says. “Among other things, the law significantly expands the scope of registration eligibility and requires, for the first time, use of in-person verification and a conviction-based registration classification scheme. The states are expected to make major changes to their regimes, at significant trouble and cost.”
cleanuptheregistryohio.blogspot.com : A Sex Offender is SOMEONE'S Child!
Section 3: SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM (pdf)
Data at a Glance:
• 3.55% of sex offenders on parole with CDCR had committed new sex offenses by the time the conclusion of their three-year parole period.
• A ten-year follow-up study of 879 sex offenders in the state of Ohio reported that when using sex offense conviction as the outcome measurement, of 34 % of sex offenders who have re-offended, only 8 % were re-committed for a new sex crime, plus 3 % for a technical violation judged to be related to a potential new sex crime, while the other 22% reoffended for non-sexual offenses.
Solid information about the recidivism of sex offenders is one of the key building blocks for good policy and effective practice in sex offender management. If it were not for the concern that an identified sex offender may offend again in the future and create another victim, the questions about how to best manage sex offenders living in California communities would not be of such intense interest. Knowing how likely it is that an individual sex offender or a certain type of sex offender might re-offend can drive many decisions. Similarly, knowing what interventions actually reduce the chances that a sex offender will re-offend is also extremely important.
Existing data indicates that the majority of sex offenders do not re-offend sexually over time (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Additionally, research studies over the past two decades have consistently indicated that recidivism rates for sex offenders are, in reality, lower than the re-offense rates for most other types of offenders. In a longitudinal study that followed 4,742 known sex offenders over a period of 15 years, 24% were charged with or convicted of, a new sexual offense (Harris & Hanson, 2004). The U.S. Department of Justice found that 5% of 9,691 sex offenders released from prisons in 1994 were re-arrested for new sex crimes within three years. Recent research data from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicate that fewer than 4% of the convicted sex offenders released to parole in 2003 were returned for a new sex offense over the course of a three year period of living in the community under parole supervision (CDCR Research, 2007).
When President Bush signed the Adam Walsh Act into law, it required states to contribute to a national database of sex offenders with more current and stringent registration requirements.
But states and American Indian tribes are having a tough time implementing some of the requirements of the 2006 law — such as making the names and addresses of juvenile sex offenders available on the Internet.
In Colorado, officials have met for more than a year to decide whether to comply with the Adam Walsh Act by July or lose $240,000 in federal funding. And it may be worth losing the money since it could cost more to fulfill the law's requirements.
"I think at this point, the committee has not reached a final conclusion," said Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, program director of Colorado's Sex Offender Management Board. "We are looking at the fact that this is an unfunded mandate. The other issue is that the committee and the state are committed to doing what is best for safety and victim protection. And looking at this act, is it going to further the cause?"
The Justice Policy Institute, a Washington think tank that promotes alternatives to prison incarceration, has estimated that the law would cost Colorado $7.8 million to implement.
This fall, the committee is expected to present a preliminary recommendation to Gov. Bill Ritter to decide on compliance. "The money is not necessarily there, and does it make sense above and beyond that even if the money were there?" Lobanov-Rostovsky asked.
In Colorado, sex offenders are classified based on risk to the community. And not all states have the same charges or same coding for offenses, but they all have to become uniform under the act. "We would have to shift over to a charge-based system," Lobanov-Rostovsky said. "We would have to change our sexual-assault statutes, and those are some of the challenges."
One of the biggest controversies for states to deal with is whether to upload information about juvenile sex offenders into the database, such as their address, the school they attend and a photograph.
"We are extremely disturbed that we could be putting kids as young as 14 on this database," she said. "What we would like instead is for people on the registry not to get this sort of ostracism and get them the services and opportunities to help reduce recidivism."
Nastassia Walsh said a national sex-offender registry is not the answer and that money should be spent on rehabilitation or other crime-fighting programs. "There really is no evidence to show that this is an effective way to enforce public safety," she said. "It is just political rhetoric to keep kids safe, but it is turning into a logistical nightmare."
Friday, September 19, 2008
Even sex offenders are entitled to protections of Constitution.
Sex offenders are an unsympathetic lot, and deservedly so. But if the government is allowed to trample and shred the constitutional rights of even the tiniest, most shunned segment of the population, how long before authorities decide to take away yours?
U.S. District Judge James Mahan took the state of Nevada off that slippery slope Wednesday when he prevented the retroactive application of a law that would have reclassified more than 2,000 registered sex offenders.
The statute, approved last year to meet the standards of the federal Adam Walsh Act, aimed to reclassify sex offenders based on the crimes they've committed, rather than their perceived risk of re-offending. As a result, hundreds of Tier 1 offenders who've completed prison terms, stayed out of trouble for years and been considered no threat to public safety suddenly would have been labeled Tier 3 offenders. Their photos and personal information would have been posted on the state's sex offender Web site, they would've had to check in with authorities every 90 days, and a few would have had to wear GPS monitoring devices. Many feared losing their livelihoods and their rebuilt reputations.
Judge Mahan correctly ruled that applying the law retroactively violated the Constitution's due process and double jeopardy protections. A decision on whether the law can be constitutionally applied to future convictions is pending in state court.
"We know that it's a brave thing to do to make a decision that affirms the rights of sex offenders," said ACLU of Nevada staff attorney Maggie McLetchie, whose organization brought the challenge to federal court on behalf of several plantiffs. "It's about the limits on the power of government."
Amen. Aside from the constitutional concerns, there were legitimate public safety issues as well. How could the law-abiding public be expected to measure the risks to themselves and their families if, overnight, the number of Tier 3 sex offenders in Nevada grew from about 160 to more than 2,500? Would their children really be in danger if one day their neighborhood was deemed free of dangerous molesters and rapists, but the next day the state said there were two on the same street?
The ACLU and the federal court deserve a lot of credit for protecting not just the rights of sex offenders, but of all citizens.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The state's online sex offender registry is filled with more than 3,700 names. Each of those offenders is required to register with the local police or sheriff's office when they move to a new community.
Local law enforcement agencies say there is a benefit to registering these offenders, but they say keeping tabs on them is taxing their departments' resources.
Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was signed into law in 1999. The state began requiring local departments to register offenders in 2006. Washington County Sheriff Donnie Smith has only 8 patrolmen to cover more than 3,200 square miles. Smith said the sex offender registrations are cutting into the time his staff spends out on the roads. He said it usually takes about 40 hours per week.
"We're not getting any support from anybody for this," Gastia said. "This is entirely the responsibility of the city of Bangor. We're mandated by the state. We're responsible for finding the funding and manpower to go out and do this. It's been very much a challenge and very taxing on us."
"No," Blanchette exclaimed. "We are not going to be able to fund municipalities for what they are doing because they are going to get some funding through the Adam Walsh Act which is a federal act."
Thursday, September 11, 2008
ktvn.com: Sex Offender Law Dropped
Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge kept a new state sex offender law from going into effect. The law would have forced other offenders - who committed crimes and served their time long ago - to sign up with the state's sex offender registry, even though the registry may not have been around at the time of their conviction.
A federal judge ruled that changes to Nevada's sex offender law are unconstitutional. The changes would have grouped all of the offenders together so that, no matter how minor the offense, everyone convicted would have to register as a sex offender, dating all the way back to 1956.
Cameron Wolter was convicted 22 years ago. "My offense was with an adult. She said it wasn't consensual after the fact." Camerson says he obeyed all of the registration rules, yet was afraid that the new law would cost him again.
The ACLU agrees, and that's why it brought the lawsuit against the state of Nevada.
"I think the court recognized that the state of Nevada is safer under the old statutory scheme because it does provide an assessment of each individual law," explains Robert Langford with the ACLU. "We need to go back on the table and really think about re-victimization. And also, do we set ourselves up for failure by putting a law that they all become tier three - and parole and probation could not possibly keep up with it?"
Because these changes are not going to be implemented, Nevada could lose about $300,000 in Justice Department grants. It's possible that the federal government will appeal the ruling or try to pass the laws again.http://sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/2008/09/nv-permanent-injunction-offender.html
A man convicted of rape seven years ago won a partial victory yesterday in a Franklin County lawsuit challenging a new state law that retroactively imposed stricter registration requirements for sex offenders. Rubin T. Toles must register his address with the sheriff more frequently and for the rest of his life, but many other requirements contained in the law are unconstitutional in his case, Common Pleas Judge Charles A. Schneider ruled.
Toles' lawsuit is among numerous challenges that have been filed across the state since Ohio adopted the Adam Walsh Act late last year, but it's the first to be ruled on in Franklin County. In May, a Cuyahoga County judge found the retroactive aspects of the law to be unconstitutional in the case of a man convicted of sexual battery in 2003.
"I anticipate that one or both of the parties in the case will appeal," Schneider said. "It won't rest until the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court rules on this decision. So, I encourage them to appeal. Only the Supreme Court can render the ultimate decision."
Toles pleaded guilty in 2001 to the rape of a 12-year-old girl. The court classified him as a sexually oriented offender and determined that he was not a sexual predator. Under state law at the time, Megan's Law, he was required to register annually for 10 years when he was released.
Under the Adam Walsh Act, which took effect Jan. 1 in Ohio, Toles was reclassified as a Tier III offender, requiring him to register quarterly for the rest of his life. He also became subject to community notification, under which the sheriff is required to notify his neighbors and others in the community of his residence.
Schneider ruled that Toles, 38, is not subject to community notification because a hearing at the time of his conviction determined he was not a sexual predator. The judge also ruled that much of the information required on the registration form under the new law posed an unreasonable burden in Toles' case, such as license-plate numbers of vehicles available to him, where those vehicles are usually kept, telephone numbers he uses, and "any other information required by (the state Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation) without limitation."
"How does anyone know what telephone numbers he might use?" Schneider wrote. "Most troubling is the open invitation to BCI to add additional requirements without limitation."
However, the change in frequency and duration of registration was not punitive or burdensome enough to violate the state's retroactivity clause, the judge ruled.
The county public defender's office is handling more than 500 challenges to the law, he said.
Nearly 1,000 such cases had been filed in Cuyahoga County when the ruling was issued there in May, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer reported.
Amy Borror, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Public Defender, said that "26,000 people were reclassified under the new law. Nobody has a good number for how many have filed challenges, but it's in the thousands."
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
San Luis Obispo County Website : Judge restricts sex offender laws
A federal judge Wednesday put a stop to a new state sex offender law. The law would have reclassified sex offenders putting them in categories based on the crimes they committed.
Opponents say the new system is unfairly targeting non-dangerous offenders.
It means sex offenders who committed crimes years ago, and served their time, will not have to worry about their past resurfacing. "I was charged with a sex crime against an adult. I did my time -- 22 years -- and now in the state of Nevada they are trying to implement sanctions which would make it impossible to live," said Wolten.
Maggie McLetchie with the ACLU argued the law once again punishes sex offenders who have already served jail time. "You were throwing all kinds of people into this sex offender group -- anybody. Number of people could have qualified as sex offender under the definition. It made no sense. It would not have furthered public safety." McLetchie says it would ruin hundreds of lives. "It would have put them at risk of losing their jobs, put their families at risk of violence."
Wolten says some sex offenders are considered more dangerous than others. And this is why the new law was challenged. "Sex predators, you're mixed in the means with people that are killing and molesting children. I have an 8-year-old daughter. I don't have any issues like that. I don't want to be in that factor," said Wolten.
The judge made it very clear his decision Wednesday has no affect on existing laws when it comes to sexual crimes against children.
Provides a chart that shows that for all states, the first-year cost of implementing SORNA outweighs the cost of losing 10 percent of the state's Byrne Grant money (the consequence of not complying with SORNA by July 2009). The sheet also gives detailed information on the cost analyses performed by Ohio and Virginia.
Ohio will spend 18.6 million dollars to implement the SORNA laws in 2009.
In return for implementing this law before the deadline, Ohio will receive $622,383
(the 10% of Byrne Funding).
In other terms, Ohio will spend 30 times more to implement these laws than it will receive by the federal government for doing so.
Download report here (PDF file).
BILLINGS – Two district judges in Montana have reached opposite conclusions about the constitutionality of a federal law that requires sex offenders to register with local authorities when they move to another state.
District Judge Richard Cebull in Billings ruled Friday that the Adam Walsh Act and the included Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) are constitutional. But District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula ruled in June that the act didn't pass constitutional muster.
The contradictory rulings mean the U.S. 9th Circuit Court will have to resolve the matter.
After determining that Congress exceeded its authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Molloy dismissed the charges against Waybright. That case has been appealed to the 9th Circuit.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The decision holds that:
- SB 10 is not an Ex-post Facto law.
- SB 10's classification, registration and notice requirements are not impermissibly retroactive.
- SB 10 does not implicate Double Jeopardy.
- SB 10 does not violate the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
- SB 10 does not entail Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
- SB 10's residency restrictions, applied prospectively, do not violate Substantive Due Process.
- SB 10's scheme does not violate Procedural Due Process.
- SB 10's application does not constitute a breach of Petitioner's plea agreements.
This is yet another failure of the courts to demonstrate the courage to do the right thing. Judge Langer, if you do not believe that this law imposes punishment, let us post your name, address, workplace and photo, along with those of your family, on the sex offender web site as a sex offender for all to see. Surely you will then understand that these impositions are, indeed punishment. And if the law is retro-active with regard to residency restrictions, then why is it not retro-active with regard to its implementation of other requirements ??
Download and view this decision here.
Download and view this decision here.