See related post : Shh…Georgia’s Sex Offender Law Changed Last Week
HB 571 makes significant changes to Georgia law governing persons on the sex offender registry. Some key changes are described below.
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.
A Summary of key provisions of HB 571
Read text of HB 571 here.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
UPDATES, Monday, June 28 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications
Today's updated number of registered offenders according to the Ohio ESORN web site:
Total Number of Offenders: 18,964 (as of 2pm on 6-28-2010)
Last update: (6-21-2010): 19,206
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.
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
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:
Help be a watchdog:
Total Number of Offenders: 18,964 (as of 2pm on 6-28-2010)
Last update: (6-21-2010): 19,206
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.
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
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:
Help be a watchdog:
Friday, June 25, 2010
A Readers' Email
This keeps things in perspective:
"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. Even though the reclassification law was ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, Senate Bill 10/AWA had actually benefited me. However, I am glad that it was ruled unconstitutional for all of the other offenders’ sake and for our constitutional rights’ sake.
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. 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 (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!
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, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office doesn’t drag their feet when it comes to “raising” somebody’s status.
Unfortunately, all of us sex offenders (even us who have served our time) keep getting kicked in the head like a dog. 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."
-from Roy
Help be a watchdog:
"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. Even though the reclassification law was ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court, Senate Bill 10/AWA had actually benefited me. However, I am glad that it was ruled unconstitutional for all of the other offenders’ sake and for our constitutional rights’ sake.
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. 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 (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!
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, the Ohio Attorney General’s Office doesn’t drag their feet when it comes to “raising” somebody’s status.
Unfortunately, all of us sex offenders (even us who have served our time) keep getting kicked in the head like a dog. 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."
-from Roy
Help be a watchdog:
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
A Reader's Suggestion
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.
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.
from Chris
....This is a good suggestion...
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
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431
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.
from Chris
....This is a good suggestion...
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
Supreme Court of Ohio
65 South Front Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431
UPDATES, Monday, June 21 : Ohio Esorn Re-Classifications
Update: 6-21-2010
ESORN Total Number of Offenders: 19,206
Number of removed registrants as of 6-21-2010 (4:30PM) = 92
Last update (6-16-2010) : Total number of registrants was: 19,298
Todays total (6-21-2010): 19,206
Info is all according to the eSORN site.
[Posted by our friend, Kevin at ARC radio. Thanks Kevin !]
The Ohio Attorney General Office could not possibly move any slower than this !
Help pressure them to take more timely action by being a Watchdog:
Help be a watchdog:
ESORN Total Number of Offenders: 19,206
Number of removed registrants as of 6-21-2010 (4:30PM) = 92
Last update (6-16-2010) : Total number of registrants was: 19,298
Todays total (6-21-2010): 19,206
Info is all according to the eSORN site.
[Posted by our friend, Kevin at ARC radio. Thanks Kevin !]
The Ohio Attorney General Office could not possibly move any slower than this !
Help pressure them to take more timely action by being a Watchdog:
Help be a watchdog:
Thursday, June 17, 2010
UPDATES, Friday June 18 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Attorney General
We have received more information from the office of Ohio Assistant Attorney General, Justin Hykes (614-387-4257 ):
He is saying that the AG office is going through these registered sex offenders manually to determine if their registry entries are correct. Mr. Hykes believes this manual process will take 4 – 6 weeks to complete. ( This is an unacceptable time frame !)
They are waiting for the OH Supreme Court to rule on the clarification motion before reclassifying everyone at once. (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). He has "no idea" when the Supreme Court will rule on the Clarification Motion.
Mr. Hykes is advising offenders to comply with their registrations even if they should now be expired. He said the Sheriffs’ may arrest out of compliance offenders, 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. (Then they can file a lawsuit for this false arrest.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email or Fax Your Judicial Order to the Ohio Attorney General:
In light of these discoveries, we suggest all readers who are now improperly classified sex offenders fax or email their "judicial order" papers to the Attorney General's office. 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). If you can find this paper, you should fax or email it to the AG Office with "Attention: Justin Hykes" on the subject line.
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087 (main AG fax)
(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 here)
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.
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.
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 June 3rd Supreme Court ruling. Despite the fact that this demonstrates how incompetent the Office of the AG is in giving out contradictory information, 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.
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.
To Public Defenders:
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 here. 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.
Help be a watchdog:
He is saying that the AG office is going through these registered sex offenders manually to determine if their registry entries are correct. Mr. Hykes believes this manual process will take 4 – 6 weeks to complete. ( This is an unacceptable time frame !)
They are waiting for the OH Supreme Court to rule on the clarification motion before reclassifying everyone at once. (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). He has "no idea" when the Supreme Court will rule on the Clarification Motion.
Mr. Hykes is advising offenders to comply with their registrations even if they should now be expired. He said the Sheriffs’ may arrest out of compliance offenders, 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. (Then they can file a lawsuit for this false arrest.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email or Fax Your Judicial Order to the Ohio Attorney General:
In light of these discoveries, we suggest all readers who are now improperly classified sex offenders fax or email their "judicial order" papers to the Attorney General's office. 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). If you can find this paper, you should fax or email it to the AG Office with "Attention: Justin Hykes" on the subject line.
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087 (main AG fax)
(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 here)
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.
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.
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 June 3rd Supreme Court ruling. Despite the fact that this demonstrates how incompetent the Office of the AG is in giving out contradictory information, 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.
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.
To Public Defenders:
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 here. 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.
Help be a watchdog:
Sex Crimes Can Never Be Eradicated
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.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, we have tried futiley since the inception of our nation to eradicate murder.
Have we ever, over the course of humanity, been able to end all murders? The answer is, obviously: no.
Our laws become deterrents for most people to commit such horrific crimes, but not for all. 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.
Once we understand this simple truth, we can come to rational approaches to drafting logical sex offender laws. Sex offenses are no worse, nor no better, than any other type of crime. Crime is crime. Right is right, Wrong is wrong.
But as long as we have "sky-is-falling" irrational maniacs 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.
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. Legislators only act when they see it in their own political self-interest to do so.
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. 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.
US House Votes to Ban Mortgages to Sex Offenders
Sex Offenders Flagged for FHA Mortgages — The House passed an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, to the FHA Reform Act that will require individuals applying for mortgage from the Federal Housing Administration to certify that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor.
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
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
What About All Those Fees County Sheriffs Extort From Sex Offenders on Registries?
We first reported in April 2009 of Ohio County Sheriff Departments charging fees to registered sex offenders when they register on site. See: Ohio County Sheriffs Rape Sex OffendersWe then began hearing that Sheriff Departments were charging such fees in more than 20 Ohio Counties. See: More Ohio Counties Charge Sex Offenders
This allowance was written into the Ohio Revised Code:
311.171 Fees for sex offender registration and notification.(Maximum fee =$100 per year)
We have suggested all along that ex sex offenders refuse to pay these extortion fees. The law says that Sheriffs cannot refuse to register those who do not pay (see C 5). And any unpaid fees can only be pursued through civil debt collection (see C 6): "The county may recover those fees in a civil action in the same manner as other money due the county."
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 Bodyke Supreme Court ruling?
Those who are now expunged from the sex offender registries have every right to sue the County, State, Ohio Attorney General and County Sheriff Department to reclaim this money. We suggest that any ex offender who is now removed from the registries file suit to reclaim these fees. This can be done through small claims court, 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. We are not legal professionals and cannot give specific legal advice, so you should consult your own legal professional or do your own research. 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).
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) you should consider doing this. 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, sex offenders are the easy punching bag. Only by fighting back in these types of battles will we ever see significant changes in sex offender laws.
Emails from Ohio Attorney General
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).
"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."
Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229
"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."
Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229
We also recieved this , from another reader (Thank you):
"Spoke to Bob Hastings, Hamilton County Appellate Public Defender today. He had the following to say:
* He believes the Ohio Supreme Court will reclassify those in groups a and b (see AG motion to Supreme Court I sent out yesterday and attached here again). He feels those in group C may not be reclassified. He said it is around 50 offenders in group C.
* 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.
* If the AG stops moving forward his office will take legal action.
* 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.
* He is meeting tomorrow with the Hamilton County prosecutor's office and will keep me updated. "
"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."
Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229
"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."
Stephen R. Brown ,Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,Ohio BCI&I
Supervisor OHLEG/eSorn Technical Support Group, 866.406.4534, 740.845.2229
We also recieved this , from another reader (Thank you):
"Spoke to Bob Hastings, Hamilton County Appellate Public Defender today. He had the following to say:
* He believes the Ohio Supreme Court will reclassify those in groups a and b (see AG motion to Supreme Court I sent out yesterday and attached here again). He feels those in group C may not be reclassified. He said it is around 50 offenders in group C.
* 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.
* If the AG stops moving forward his office will take legal action.
* 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.
* He is meeting tomorrow with the Hamilton County prosecutor's office and will keep me updated. "
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications
Update Reports from Readers About Re-Classifications:
We have created a new page on our blogs 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 email to us here.
If you have seen your registration updated (re-classified or removed), let us know, as well:
We have created a new page on our blogs 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 email to us here.
If you have seen your registration updated (re-classified or removed), let us know, as well:
Ohio Attorney General Files Motion for Clarification
The Ohio Attorney General Filed yesterday a Motion for Reconsideration in the Ohio Supreme Court in response to the Bodyke vs, Ohio decision of June 3, 2010.
JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION BY
APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO AND AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
RICHARD CORDRAY (view PDF file)
INTRODUCTION
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 clarification of its June 3; 2010 decision in State v. Bodyke, 2010 Ohio Lexis 1271, 2010-Ohio-2424.
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. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Rather, the State and the Attorney General seek clarification 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.
The Attorney General's Office is moving quickly (No, they are not) to update the State's sex-offender registry (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, the Office will update e-SORN to reflect the original Megan's Law classifications and notify these offenders of the reclassification (When? ). 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.
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.
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.
To understand this motion, know the following sub-groups discussed in this motion (pages 6-8):
Group A: "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
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."
Group B: "Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released
before July 1, 2007. These individuals may not have received a formal order from a court specifying their Megan's Law classification."
Group C: "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"
JOINT MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR CLARIFICATION BY
APPELLEE STATE OF OHIO AND AMICUS CURIAE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
RICHARD CORDRAY (view PDF file)
INTRODUCTION
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 clarification of its June 3; 2010 decision in State v. Bodyke, 2010 Ohio Lexis 1271, 2010-Ohio-2424.
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. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61. Rather, the State and the Attorney General seek clarification 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.
The Attorney General's Office is moving quickly (No, they are not) to update the State's sex-offender registry (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, the Office will update e-SORN to reflect the original Megan's Law classifications and notify these offenders of the reclassification (When? ). 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.
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.
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.
To understand this motion, know the following sub-groups discussed in this motion (pages 6-8):
Group A: "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
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."
Group B: "Offenders who were incarcerated before July 1, 1997, and who were released
before July 1, 2007. These individuals may not have received a formal order from a court specifying their Megan's Law classification."
Group C: "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"
Ex Sex Offenders Want Restrictions Lifted
dispatch.com: Sex offenders want restrictions lifted- Sheriffs not reacting yet to court’s ruling.
Some sex offenders are calling sheriff's offices and demanding that their pictures and addresses be removed from online listings.
But sheriffs are being told not to alter anything (by the Ohio Attorney General's office, we are told) while lawyers and prosecutors work to determine the fallout from a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision.
The justices ruled 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.
The court's mandate to Ohio's attorney general to reclassify the affected sex offenders means some offenders no longer will need to register or report to sheriff's offices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, 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.
Cornwell has advised the sheriffs to do nothing until they hear from their county prosecutors. The attorney general's office has no estimate of when its reclassification work will be complete and offenders notified.
"I'd rather have the offender mad at the sheriff than the public," Cornwell said.
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.
Contact Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association:
6230 Busch Blvd Suite 260
Columbus, OH 43229
614-431-5500 , Fax 614-431-5665
Contact the Ohio Attorney General Office here:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ….. or….. 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257
Ohio Attorney General Office Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Some sex offenders are calling sheriff's offices and demanding that their pictures and addresses be removed from online listings.
But sheriffs are being told not to alter anything (by the Ohio Attorney General's office, we are told) while lawyers and prosecutors work to determine the fallout from a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision.
The justices ruled 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.
The court's mandate to Ohio's attorney general to reclassify the affected sex offenders means some offenders no longer will need to register or report to sheriff's offices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, 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.
Cornwell has advised the sheriffs to do nothing until they hear from their county prosecutors. The attorney general's office has no estimate of when its reclassification work will be complete and offenders notified.
"I'd rather have the offender mad at the sheriff than the public," Cornwell said.
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.
Contact Bob Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association:
6230 Busch Blvd Suite 260
Columbus, OH 43229
614-431-5500 , Fax 614-431-5665
Contact the Ohio Attorney General Office here:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ….. or….. 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257
Ohio Attorney General Office Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Monday, June 14, 2010
UPDATES, Monday June 14 : Ohio Esorn and Ohio Public Defender
ConstitutionalFights.org spoke to our source at the office of the Ohio Public Defender regarding ESORN and County Sheriff Departments in their refusal to comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling (Bodyke vs. Ohio).
Conference Call
Our contact person at the Ohio Public Defender (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 Attorney General (AG's) Office and the Ohio Justice Policy Institute (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. ConstitutionalFights.org 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.
AG Ordering Sheriffs Not to Act
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.
Legal Options
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 here.
FAQ and Guidelines
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.
More Challenges on Senate Bill 10
Finally, we talked about the remaining cases which are still pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. Two of the three are juvenile cases and the Chojnacki case 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.
Please tell us if you see updates
We need to hear from you. If you are directly affected by this Bodyke decision, please check to see if you are still listed here on the ESORN page. We need to hear from you. Please drop us a short email 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.
Please email us so we can know how many are seeing their status updated:
ConstitutionalFights@yahoo.com
If you have not seen your status updated, please continue to contact the Ohio AG Offices daily at:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ..... or..... 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257
Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Help be a watchdog:
Conference Call
Our contact person at the Ohio Public Defender (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 Attorney General (AG's) Office and the Ohio Justice Policy Institute (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. ConstitutionalFights.org 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.
AG Ordering Sheriffs Not to Act
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.
Legal Options
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 here.
FAQ and Guidelines
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.
More Challenges on Senate Bill 10
Finally, we talked about the remaining cases which are still pending before the Ohio Supreme Court. Two of the three are juvenile cases and the Chojnacki case 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.
Please tell us if you see updates
We need to hear from you. If you are directly affected by this Bodyke decision, please check to see if you are still listed here on the ESORN page. We need to hear from you. Please drop us a short email 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.
Please email us so we can know how many are seeing their status updated:
ConstitutionalFights@yahoo.com
If you have not seen your status updated, please continue to contact the Ohio AG Offices daily at:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515 ..... or..... 1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Call Justin Hykes Assistant Attorney General directly at:
614-387-4257
Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Help be a watchdog:
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Calls for Texas to Drop Out of Federal Adam Walsh Act
KXAN - Austin, Texas: Sex Offender Registries
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, which invalidated the retroactive application of Ohio's reclassification of ex sex offenders. The Attorney General's continued refusal to abide by this Supreme Court decision is an illegal act. Every reader must contact the Attorney General Office of Ohio to insist that they stop enforcing this illegal law:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127
Help be a watchdog:
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, which invalidated the retroactive application of Ohio's reclassification of ex sex offenders. The Attorney General's continued refusal to abide by this Supreme Court decision is an illegal act. Every reader must contact the Attorney General Office of Ohio to insist that they stop enforcing this illegal law:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127
Help be a watchdog:
Do Sex Offender Registration Laws Actually Make Us Safer?
Cleveland.com: Do sex offender registration laws actually make us safer?
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. At least four other proposed laws already were being considered to tweak aspects of Ohio's sex offender registration and notification laws.
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.
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. "There is always pressure to have Joe Smith's Law or Becky Jones' law to help make sense out of a tragedy."
Is that a useful approach? "The answer is, sometimes," Cordray said.
However, when it comes to sex crimes, recent long-range studies have concluded that the costly registration and monitoring laws do not reduce the number of new crimes or new victims.
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 most often did not re-offend near where they were registered as living.
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.
"We think that these type of laws are well intended, but they are misguided and very limiting," Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Megan O'Bryan said.
O'Bryan said laws create a false sense of security for the public and concentrate a vast amount of resources and attention toward a small number of offenders -- the very few who are caught and prosecuted.
The concept also capitalizes on the fear of stranger attacks, when family members, friends or acquaintances commit most sex crimes.
"Just like the public needs to be educated about these issues, so do the lawmakers," O'Bryan said.
Lawmakers need to support prevention, education and treatment for both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, she said.
Policy driven by anger
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.
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.
The emotion fueled a wave of state and federal legislation in the mid-1990s aimed at convicted sex offenders.
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.
At the time, many states and localities -- including Ohio -- already had laws on the books forcing certain sex criminals to register with the police.
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.
But the information was not public, and enforcement was haphazard. And the cost and effectiveness of the sweeping laws were a secondary consideration.
Program costs become burden
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.
The study found the registries and notification did not reduce the number of new offenses or new victims. Numbers of reported sex offenses have dropped nationwide in recent years. But that decline started before the laws were in place.
The researchers concluded that "given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable." They estimated the statewide cost in New Jersey to be at least $5.1 million a year.
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.
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.
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.
Only two other states have complied with the federal mandate so far and some have declined to do so even though they stand to lose some federal funding.
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.
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.
The Ohio Supreme Court last week pushed slightly back on the Adam Walsh system in a decision that erased the retroactive nature of the law. 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.
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.
"I think we took a huge step backward when we threw out our risk-based system and implemented this offense system," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the state public defender's office.
It makes more sense to center attention on offenders that mental health experts deemed most likely to commit new crimes, she said.
"The folks that are more likely to re-offend will now get lost in the masses," she said.
Falling through the cracks
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.
Sowell's trial may answer some questions for the community.
But what it probably won't reveal is whether any specific laws would have prevented the tragedy.
Sowell was a registered sex offender from the time he stepped out of prison in 2005, 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.
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.
But sheriff's deputies knocked on his door periodically, and he chatted them up as the women's bodies were in his home and buried in his yard.
Deputies, in fact, paid a surprise visit to his home on the same day he is accused of raping one woman.
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.
"Nobody went into the Sowell house because they didn't have the authority to," Cordray said.
But will continuing to change the laws make a difference?
"We just have to be realistic," Borror said. "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."
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. At least four other proposed laws already were being considered to tweak aspects of Ohio's sex offender registration and notification laws.
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.
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. "There is always pressure to have Joe Smith's Law or Becky Jones' law to help make sense out of a tragedy."
Is that a useful approach? "The answer is, sometimes," Cordray said.
However, when it comes to sex crimes, recent long-range studies have concluded that the costly registration and monitoring laws do not reduce the number of new crimes or new victims.
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 most often did not re-offend near where they were registered as living.
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.
"We think that these type of laws are well intended, but they are misguided and very limiting," Cleveland Rape Crisis Center President and CEO Megan O'Bryan said.
O'Bryan said laws create a false sense of security for the public and concentrate a vast amount of resources and attention toward a small number of offenders -- the very few who are caught and prosecuted.
The concept also capitalizes on the fear of stranger attacks, when family members, friends or acquaintances commit most sex crimes.
"Just like the public needs to be educated about these issues, so do the lawmakers," O'Bryan said.
Lawmakers need to support prevention, education and treatment for both victims and perpetrators of sexual assault, she said.
Policy driven by anger
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.
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.
The emotion fueled a wave of state and federal legislation in the mid-1990s aimed at convicted sex offenders.
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.
At the time, many states and localities -- including Ohio -- already had laws on the books forcing certain sex criminals to register with the police.
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.
But the information was not public, and enforcement was haphazard. And the cost and effectiveness of the sweeping laws were a secondary consideration.
Program costs become burden
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.
The study found the registries and notification did not reduce the number of new offenses or new victims. Numbers of reported sex offenses have dropped nationwide in recent years. But that decline started before the laws were in place.
The researchers concluded that "given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan's law on sexual offenses, the growing costs may not be justifiable." They estimated the statewide cost in New Jersey to be at least $5.1 million a year.
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.
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.
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.
Only two other states have complied with the federal mandate so far and some have declined to do so even though they stand to lose some federal funding.
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.
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.
The Ohio Supreme Court last week pushed slightly back on the Adam Walsh system in a decision that erased the retroactive nature of the law. 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.
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.
"I think we took a huge step backward when we threw out our risk-based system and implemented this offense system," said Amy Borror, spokeswoman for the state public defender's office.
It makes more sense to center attention on offenders that mental health experts deemed most likely to commit new crimes, she said.
"The folks that are more likely to re-offend will now get lost in the masses," she said.
Falling through the cracks
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.
Sowell's trial may answer some questions for the community.
But what it probably won't reveal is whether any specific laws would have prevented the tragedy.
Sowell was a registered sex offender from the time he stepped out of prison in 2005, 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.
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.
But sheriff's deputies knocked on his door periodically, and he chatted them up as the women's bodies were in his home and buried in his yard.
Deputies, in fact, paid a surprise visit to his home on the same day he is accused of raping one woman.
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.
"Nobody went into the Sowell house because they didn't have the authority to," Cordray said.
But will continuing to change the laws make a difference?
"We just have to be realistic," Borror said. "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."
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Ohio Jail Deputy Allowed Inmates to Assault Alleged Sex Offender
Fox8.com: Authorities say deputy at Ohio jail allowed inmates to assault alleged sex offender.
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 turned a blind eye while four inmates attacked an accused sex offender.
Twenty-nine-year-old Brian Young also faces charges of abduction, dereliction of duty and unauthorized use of property in the alleged assault at the Medina County jail in December.
Young is accused of sharing with the four inmates booking information on the alleged sex offender, who was accused of raping a child. A prosecutor says Young then did nothing when the inmates attacked the man.
You think this is an isolated incident? Think again!
Young has posted a $10,000 bond and faces a Monday arraignment. A sheriff's official says he retired on a disability pension.
See Medina County Sheriff Staff and contact information here.
Help be a watchdog:
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 turned a blind eye while four inmates attacked an accused sex offender.
Twenty-nine-year-old Brian Young also faces charges of abduction, dereliction of duty and unauthorized use of property in the alleged assault at the Medina County jail in December.
Young is accused of sharing with the four inmates booking information on the alleged sex offender, who was accused of raping a child. A prosecutor says Young then did nothing when the inmates attacked the man.
You think this is an isolated incident? Think again!
Young has posted a $10,000 bond and faces a Monday arraignment. A sheriff's official says he retired on a disability pension.
See Medina County Sheriff Staff and contact information here.
Help be a watchdog:
Thursday, June 10, 2010
More on Bodyke vs Ohio
daytondailynews.com: Ohio court: Give sex offenders old classifications.
The Briefcase: What Bodyke means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Help be a watchdog:
The Briefcase: What Bodyke means.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Help be a watchdog:
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
UPDATES, Wednesday June 9 : Ohio Esorn and Public Defender
UPDATE, Wednesday June 9, (4:00 pm):
Constitutionalfights.org 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.
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 (Bodyke vs, Ohio). As we had expected, he agrees that the Supreme Court basically bypassed looking at any of the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy or other constitutional challenges in the Bodyke decision. He feels that this 'Separation of Powers' 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.
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, government is always slow and usually incompetent. 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.
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 "Guidelines and FAQ's to the county Sheriff Departments", directing them as to what to do when invalidated registrants contact their offices.
I asked him today if they had been sent to Sheriff Departments. He said "no".
I asked him when they would be sent. He replied that they "have no time line for anything".
Shouldn't the Ohio Attorney General's office, at the very least, have a time line formulated a week after the Supreme Court ruling? 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
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, they are acting like spoiled little children and dragging their feet on this, refusing to comply until forced to do so.
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: " it can be done easily in an hour".
This is why we all must call them daily to force them to take action and comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Anyone concerned about reforming sex offender laws must call, email or write to the Ohio Attorney General' office daily until they agree to comply with the law.
Help be a watchdog:
Constitutionalfights.org 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.
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 (Bodyke vs, Ohio). As we had expected, he agrees that the Supreme Court basically bypassed looking at any of the Ex Post Facto, Double Jeopardy or other constitutional challenges in the Bodyke decision. He feels that this 'Separation of Powers' 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.
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, government is always slow and usually incompetent. 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.
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 "Guidelines and FAQ's to the county Sheriff Departments", directing them as to what to do when invalidated registrants contact their offices.
I asked him today if they had been sent to Sheriff Departments. He said "no".
I asked him when they would be sent. He replied that they "have no time line for anything".
Shouldn't the Ohio Attorney General's office, at the very least, have a time line formulated a week after the Supreme Court ruling? 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
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, they are acting like spoiled little children and dragging their feet on this, refusing to comply until forced to do so.
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: " it can be done easily in an hour".
This is why we all must call them daily to force them to take action and comply with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling. Anyone concerned about reforming sex offender laws must call, email or write to the Ohio Attorney General' office daily until they agree to comply with the law.
Help be a watchdog:
Lesson: Separation of Powers
basicallylaw.com (Legal Information and Discussion For Students and Lay People):Separation of Powers? Ohio Supreme Court Will Not Allow State Attorney General To Reclassify Sex Offenders Already Classified By Court Order.
In law school, I took a class involving issues of federalism and separation of powers. 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?
Read the opinion Ohio v. Bodyke
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.
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 ex post facto clause of the Ohio Constitution. Instead of addressing the ex post facto argument (since courts have continuously upheld sex offender registration laws against ex post facto challenges), the Ohio Supreme Court invalidated those sections of the law reclassifying sex offenders because it violated principles of separation of powers.
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.
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. The Ohio law infringes this basic tenet of the separation of powers.
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:
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 the General Assembly cannot annul, reverse, or modify a judgment of a court already rendered.
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. Thus, sex offenders classified under the old law will be classified as such.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Action Item: We Need Watchdogs in Ohio (and from outside Ohio)
We have seen absolutely no action on the part of the Ohio Attorney General or Ohio County Sheriff Departments in complying with the Ohio Supreme Court ruling last week, 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 invalidated and ruled unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court. Make no mistake: the state's failure, or refusal, to comply with this ruling is indeed, an illegal act.Months ago, we saw the Kentucky Attorney General refuse to comply by the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling which struck down the retroactive residency restrictions in that state. He dragged his feet as long as possible before being denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For this reason, 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 until they agree to abide by the law. We have been doing this but they are showing anger against us now. So we need everyone's help.
Ohio Attorney General Office:
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, 30 E. Broad St., 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
(800) 282-0515
Monday – Friday 8 a.m. – 7 p.m.
Email Ohio ESORN at OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Justin Hykes, Assistant Attorney General of Ohio
justin.hykes@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
614-387-4257
FAX 614-466-5087
OHLEG Support
1-866-40-OHLEG (1-866-406-4534)
OHLEGsupport@OhioAttorneyGeneral.gov
Media Contacts:
Kim Kowalski: (614) 728-9692, cell: (614) 893-6018
Ted Hart: Deputy Director of Media Relations
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
PHONE 614-728-4127, cell: (614) 743-2286
EMAIL ted.hart@ohioattorneygeneral.gov (614) 728-4127
Contact list for Ohio County Sheriff Departments (Ask to speak with the SORN or Sex Offender Office):
| Sheriff name | Phone number | Web site | eSORN Site | County |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kermit Howard | (937) 544-2314 | view | view | Adams |
| Samuel A. Crish | (419) 993-1435 | view | view | Allen |
| Estel Risner | (419) 289-3911 | view | view | Ashland |
| William Johnson | (440) 576-3540 | view | view | Ashtabula |
| Patrick Kelly | (740) 593-6633 | view | view | Athens |
| Allen F. Solomon | (419) 739-6565 | view | view | Auglaize |
| Fred Thompson | (740) 695-7933 | view | view | Belmont |
| Dwayne Wenninger | (937) 378-4435 | view | view | Brown |
| Richard K. Jones | (513) 785-1246 | view | view | Butler |
| Dale R. Williams | (330) 627-2141 | view | view | Carroll |
| Brent A. Emmons | (937) 652-1311 | view | view | Champaign |
| Gene Kelly | (937) 328-2537 | view | view | Clark |
| A.J. Tim Rodenberg | (513) 732-7500 | view | view | Clermont |
| Ralph D. Fizer Jr. | (937) 382-1611 | view | view | Clinton |
| Raymond L. Stone | (330) 424-4065 | view | view | Columbiana |
| Timothy Rogers | (740) 622-2411 | view | view | Coshocton |
| Ronny J. Shawber | (419) 562-7906 | view | view | Crawford |
| Gerald T. McFaul | (216) 443-5567 | view | view | Cuyahoga |
| Toby L. Spencer | (937) 547-7337 | view | view | Darke |
| David J. Westrick | (419) 784-1155 | view | view | Defiance |
| Walter L. Davis III | (740) 833-2845 | view | view | Delaware |
| Terry M. Lyons | (419) 625-7951 | view | view | Erie |
| David Phalen | (740) 681-7239 | view | view | Fairfield |
| Vernon Stanforth | (740) 333-3504 | view | view | Fayette |
| James Karnes | (614) 462-3351 | view | view | Franklin |
| Darell Merillat | (419) 335-4010 | view | view | Fulton |
| Joseph R Browning | (740) 446-4614 | view | view | Gallia |
| Daniel C McClelland | (440) 279-2009 | view | view | Geauga |
| Gene Fischer | (937) 562-4820 | view | view | Greene |
| Michael R. McCauley | (740) 439-4455 | view | view | Guernsey |
| Simon L. Leis, Jr. | (513) 946-6230 | view | view | Hamilton |
| Michael E. Heldman | (419) 424-7235 | view | view | Hancock |
| Keith Everhart | (419) 673-1268 | view | view | Hardin |
| Mark Miller | (740) 942-2197 | view | view | Harrison |
| John J. Nye | (419) 592-8010 | view | view | Henry |
| Ronald D Ward | (937) 840-6240 | view | view | Highland |
| Lanny E. North | (740) 385-2131 | view | view | Hocking |
| Timothy W. Zimmerly | (330) 674-1936 | view | view | Holmes |
| Dane Howard | (419) 668-1996 | | view | Huron |
| John Shasteen | (740) 286-6464 | view | view | Jackson |
| Fred J. Abdalla | (740) 283-8600 | view | view | Jefferson |
| David Barber | (740) 393-6800 | view | view | Knox |
| Daniel A. Dunlap | (440) 350-5676 | view | view | Lake |
| Timothy Sexton | (740) 532-3525 | view | view | Lawrence |
| Randy Thorp | (740) 670-5525 | view | view | Licking |
| Andrew J Smith | (937) 599-3247 | view | view | Logan |
| Phil Stammitti | (440) 329-3709 | view | view | Lorain |
| James A Telb | (419) 213-4269 | view | view | Lucas |
| James P. Sabin | (740) 852-1332 | view | view | Madison |
| Randall Wellington | (330) 480-5055 | view | view | Mahoning |
| Tim Bailey | (740) 382-8244 | view | view | Marion |
| Neil Hassinger | (330) 725-9116 | view | view | Medina |
| Robert E. Beegle | (740) 992-3371 | | view | Meigs |
| Jeff Grey | (419) 586-5770 | view | view | Mercer |
| Charles Cox | (937) 440-6085 | view | view | Miami |
| Charles R. Black | (740) 472-1612 | view | view | Monroe |
| Phil Plummer | (937) 224-3995 | view | view | Montgomery |
| Thomas Jenkins Sr. | (740) 962-4044 | | view | Morgan |
| Steven Brenneman | (419) 947-1151 | view | view | Morrow |
| Matthew J Lutz | (740) 452-3637 | view | view | Muskingum |
| Stephen S Hannum | (740) 732-5631 | view | view | Noble |
| Robert L. Bratton | (419) 734-6826 | view | view | Ottawa |
| David Harrow | (419) 399-3791 | view | view | Paulding |
| William Randall Barker | (740) 342-4123 | view | view | Perry |
| Dwight E. Radcliff | (800) 472-5245 | view | view | Pickaway |
| RICHARD N HENDERSON | (740) 947-2111 | view | view | Pike |
| David W. Doak | (330) 297-3890 | view | view | Portage |
| Michael Simpson | (937) 456-6314 | view | view | Preble |
| James Beutler | (419) 523-3208 | view | view | Putnam |
| J. Steve Sheldon | (419) 774-3550 | view | view | Richland |
| George W. Lavender | (740) 773-1186 | view | view | Ross |
| David Gangwer | (419) 332-2613 | view | view | Sandusky |
| Marty V. Donini | (740) 355-8261 | view | view | Scioto |
| Thomas Steyer | (419) 447-3456 | view | view | Seneca |
| Doug Schlagetter | (937) 494-2119 | view | view | Shelby |
| Timothy Swanson | (330) 430-3800 | view | view | Stark |
| Drew Alexander | (330) 643-2164 | view | view | Summit |
| Thomas L. Altiere | (330) 675-2440 | view | view | Trumbull |
| Walter R. Wilson | (330) 308-6637 | view | view | Tuscarawas |
| Rocky Nelson | (937) 645-4131 | view | view | Union |
| Stan D. Owens | (419) 238-3866 | view | view | Van Wert |
| David N. Hickey | (740) 596-5242 | | view | Vinton |
| Larry Sims | (513) 695-1522 | view | view | Warren |
| Larry R. Mincks SR. | (740) 376-7070 | view | view | Washington |
| Thomas G. Maurer | (330) 287-5749 | view | view | Wayne |
| Kevin A. Beck | (419) 636-3151 | view | view | Williams |
| Mark Wasylyshyn | (419) 354-1412 | view | view | Wood |
| Michael R. Hetzel | (419) 294-2362 | | view | Wyandot |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
