philly.com : New push to impose sex offender residency limit.
Just weeks after New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that towns cannot ban sex offenders from living near schools, parks or other places where children gather, some state lawmakers are pushing legislation that would give municipalities that right.
The May 7 court ruling struck down municipal ordinances in the southern Jersey communities of Cherry Hill and Galloway and invalidated similar laws in more than 100 other towns across the state. The cases highlighted Megan's Law, which requires convicted sex offenders to register their whereabouts with law enforcement, and meant local ordinances could only be allowed if lawmakers expanded that law or explicitly authorized towns to craft their own rules.
The proposed bill, A-641, would permit local measures that bar Megan's Law registrants from living up to 2,000 feet from places where children gather. However, supporters say the measure also would ensure that such ordinances could not be manipulated to create a zoning scheme that would effectively block a sex offender from residing anywhere in a given town.
Two other co-sponsors , Assemblywomen Pamela R. Lampitt, D-Camden, and Linda Greenstein, D-Hamilton, said the bill would help ensure that each local ordinance would be consistent and able to stand firmly on its legal merits.
To view legislation, click below and search bill "641":
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByNumber.asp
Update(June 9,2009)
lehighvalleylive.com : Measure to restrict residency for sexual offenders approved.
More than 100 New Jersey communities, including several in Warren County, may be able to have their local ordinances reinstated that prohibit sexual offenders from living in close proximity to a school, park, playground or day care center. Wayne DeAngelo is a co-sponsor of the bill, which would place restrictions on the location of the residences of sexual offenders.
A measure unanimously approved Monday by the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee would restore ordinances nullified by the New Jersey Supreme Court in May.
It would, however set the radius at 500 feet and exempt those already residing in a community at the time the local law is enacted.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Couple Arrested for Housing Sex Offender
communitynewspapergroup.com (Iowa) : Authorities arrest couple in connection with sex offender violation.
Think these sex offender laws apply only to sex offenders? Think again!
Sheriffs arrested two people for child endangerment for allegedly allowing a sex offender to live in their home.
The Sheriff's Office filed other charges on the suspect after learning that Julia and her husband, Ian P. Rodenberg, were renting a room at their residence to a person on the sex offender registry.
The Rodenberg's have three small children ranging from 4 to 10-years-old also living at the same residence.
Ian Rodenberg was then arrested and both he and his wife, were charged with child endangerment and taken to the Fayette County Jail. The child endangerment charge is an Aggravated Misdemeanor. The Fayette County Sheriff's Office also notified the Department of Human Services and the three children were turned over to their custody.
Think these sex offender laws apply only to sex offenders? Think again!
Sheriffs arrested two people for child endangerment for allegedly allowing a sex offender to live in their home.
The Sheriff's Office filed other charges on the suspect after learning that Julia and her husband, Ian P. Rodenberg, were renting a room at their residence to a person on the sex offender registry.
The Rodenberg's have three small children ranging from 4 to 10-years-old also living at the same residence.
Ian Rodenberg was then arrested and both he and his wife, were charged with child endangerment and taken to the Fayette County Jail. The child endangerment charge is an Aggravated Misdemeanor. The Fayette County Sheriff's Office also notified the Department of Human Services and the three children were turned over to their custody.
Ohio’s Sex Offender Law Requirements
Dayton Legal News ; DailyCourt.com : Ohio’s Sex Offender Law Requires Registration.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, signed into law on July 27, 2006, was intended to provide a standard method of determining sex offender classifications, and to standardize sex offender requirements in every state. Ohio adopted this federal law and made this Act effective in the state on January 1, 2008.
Q: Who must register as a sex offender?
A: The Adam Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three categories, or tiers, with different registration requirements based upon an offender’s criminal conviction(s). This law applies to adult offenders as well as juvenile offenders, all of whom are required to register with the sheriff of the county where they live, work and attend school. They also must register with the sheriff any time they change their place of residence
Tier III offenders are considered the most serious offenders. They include those who have been convicted for offenses such as rape, sexual battery, murder with sexual motivation, etc. Tier III offenders (adult and juvenile) must register every 90 days for the rest of their lives.
Tier II offenders include those who have been convicted of offenses such as gross sexual imposition with a victim under 13 years old, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when the offender is four or more years older than the victim.
Adult offenders must register every 180 days for 25 years; juvenile offenders must register for 20 years.
Tier I offenders include those who have been convicted of offenses such as sexual imposition, voyeurism, and pandering obscenity. Adult offenders must register once a year for 15 years; juvenile offenders must register for 10 years.
Offenders who fail to register and update information may be charged with a separate felony offense under the law.
Q: Will the public be notified of sex offenders’ whereabouts?
A: The law requires the community to be notified of the whereabouts of Tier III sex offenders. This means that the sheriff of the county in which a Tier III offender lives or moves to must notify all residents of a neighborhood who live within 1000 feet of that sex offender’s home address. The sheriff also must notify schools, registered day-care providers, and other law enforcement agencies within the county any time a Tier III sex offender moves.
Q: What information must a sex offender provide to the sheriff?
A: All registered sex offenders must provide information about themselves to the sheriff’s office of their residential county during the entire time that they are required to register. That information includes any change of address, places of employment, enrollment in a school or institution of higher education, vehicles registered to them or which they might operate, telephone numbers, and all Internet accounts they may have, including e-mail addresses and any MySpace or similar accounts they may use.
Q: Where can sex offenders live?
A: Generally, registered sex offenders may live anywhere they choose, as long as that residence is at least 1000 feet from a school. “Schools” also include preschools and child day care centers. A civil legal action may be taken against any adult sex offender who lives within 1000 feet of a school, and a judge may order the offender to move. Juvenile sex offenders are not prohibited from living within 1000 feet of a school.
The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, signed into law on July 27, 2006, was intended to provide a standard method of determining sex offender classifications, and to standardize sex offender requirements in every state. Ohio adopted this federal law and made this Act effective in the state on January 1, 2008.
Q: Who must register as a sex offender?
A: The Adam Walsh Act organizes sex offenders into three categories, or tiers, with different registration requirements based upon an offender’s criminal conviction(s). This law applies to adult offenders as well as juvenile offenders, all of whom are required to register with the sheriff of the county where they live, work and attend school. They also must register with the sheriff any time they change their place of residence
Tier III offenders are considered the most serious offenders. They include those who have been convicted for offenses such as rape, sexual battery, murder with sexual motivation, etc. Tier III offenders (adult and juvenile) must register every 90 days for the rest of their lives.
Tier II offenders include those who have been convicted of offenses such as gross sexual imposition with a victim under 13 years old, pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor, and unlawful sexual conduct with a minor when the offender is four or more years older than the victim.
Adult offenders must register every 180 days for 25 years; juvenile offenders must register for 20 years.
Tier I offenders include those who have been convicted of offenses such as sexual imposition, voyeurism, and pandering obscenity. Adult offenders must register once a year for 15 years; juvenile offenders must register for 10 years.
Offenders who fail to register and update information may be charged with a separate felony offense under the law.
Q: Will the public be notified of sex offenders’ whereabouts?
A: The law requires the community to be notified of the whereabouts of Tier III sex offenders. This means that the sheriff of the county in which a Tier III offender lives or moves to must notify all residents of a neighborhood who live within 1000 feet of that sex offender’s home address. The sheriff also must notify schools, registered day-care providers, and other law enforcement agencies within the county any time a Tier III sex offender moves.
Q: What information must a sex offender provide to the sheriff?
A: All registered sex offenders must provide information about themselves to the sheriff’s office of their residential county during the entire time that they are required to register. That information includes any change of address, places of employment, enrollment in a school or institution of higher education, vehicles registered to them or which they might operate, telephone numbers, and all Internet accounts they may have, including e-mail addresses and any MySpace or similar accounts they may use.
Q: Where can sex offenders live?
A: Generally, registered sex offenders may live anywhere they choose, as long as that residence is at least 1000 feet from a school. “Schools” also include preschools and child day care centers. A civil legal action may be taken against any adult sex offender who lives within 1000 feet of a school, and a judge may order the offender to move. Juvenile sex offenders are not prohibited from living within 1000 feet of a school.
Define "Loitering" : Federal Lawsuit in PA
dailyitem.com : ACLU: Sunbury change sex offender ordinance or face suit.
The city will be named in a federal lawsuit next week if it doesn’t move to eliminate a 2006 ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, playgrounds or any public place children congregate.
The city’s sex offender loitering ordinance is being challenged as unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union. Valerie Burch, of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, contacted city solicitor Michael Apfelbaum on Tuesday and notified him that a lawsuit will be filed next week if the municipality doesn’t act.
“We’re giving the city the opportunity to make it right without going to federal court,” Burch said .
The primary issue with the Sunbury ordinance is its vagueness, she said. “It’s unconstitutional when a law is not clear,” Burch said. “Loitering is not defined. A bug on the street could cause kids to gather.”
Apfelbaum agreed the language in the ordinance was too broad and said he’ll meet next week with the city council to discuss how to tighten up the language to provide more specificity on public areas restricted to sex offenders. “We’ve even asked the ACLU for suggestions,” he said. If the city fails to demonstrate its willingness to address the issue by Monday, Burch said, a lawsuit will be filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of “Jane Doe.”
“Jane Doe” is Teri Jo Hunt, a 39-year-old Sunbury mother of four and registered sex offender, who was cited for violating the ordinance last summer. The ACLU was alerted to the local law by news reports about Hunt, who was cited after she went to a city park with her young son.
Hunt, who was convicted of a felony offense in 2002 for taking a photo of a young girl’s breasts, said she was adhering to state Megan’s Law requirements of registering annually with the state police but had no idea there was a city law prohibiting her from taking her children to events and places where other minors gathered.
Many municipalities across Pennsylvania have passed ordinances restricting sexual offenders, Burch said, but few include the loitering element. Unlike the city ordinance, the state law doesn’t limit offenders’ housing options or movements.
The city will be named in a federal lawsuit next week if it doesn’t move to eliminate a 2006 ordinance prohibiting registered sex offenders from loitering within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares, playgrounds or any public place children congregate.
The city’s sex offender loitering ordinance is being challenged as unconstitutional by the American Civil Liberties Union. Valerie Burch, of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, contacted city solicitor Michael Apfelbaum on Tuesday and notified him that a lawsuit will be filed next week if the municipality doesn’t act.
“We’re giving the city the opportunity to make it right without going to federal court,” Burch said .
The primary issue with the Sunbury ordinance is its vagueness, she said. “It’s unconstitutional when a law is not clear,” Burch said. “Loitering is not defined. A bug on the street could cause kids to gather.”
Apfelbaum agreed the language in the ordinance was too broad and said he’ll meet next week with the city council to discuss how to tighten up the language to provide more specificity on public areas restricted to sex offenders. “We’ve even asked the ACLU for suggestions,” he said. If the city fails to demonstrate its willingness to address the issue by Monday, Burch said, a lawsuit will be filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on behalf of “Jane Doe.”
“Jane Doe” is Teri Jo Hunt, a 39-year-old Sunbury mother of four and registered sex offender, who was cited for violating the ordinance last summer. The ACLU was alerted to the local law by news reports about Hunt, who was cited after she went to a city park with her young son.
Hunt, who was convicted of a felony offense in 2002 for taking a photo of a young girl’s breasts, said she was adhering to state Megan’s Law requirements of registering annually with the state police but had no idea there was a city law prohibiting her from taking her children to events and places where other minors gathered.
Many municipalities across Pennsylvania have passed ordinances restricting sexual offenders, Burch said, but few include the loitering element. Unlike the city ordinance, the state law doesn’t limit offenders’ housing options or movements.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Council Votes Against Parents With Kids
wisn.com : Council Votes Against Sex Offender Ordinance.
South Milwaukee’s Common Council considered an ordinance that had parents and the police chief surprised.
The ordinance would have allowed convicted sex offenders to participate in their children’s school activities.
However, the council voted against the measure in a unanimous vote. South Milwaukee has about 30 registered sex offenders, but neither police nor the school system knows how many have kids in school. City ordinance currently forbids them from setting foot on school property.
South Milwaukee’s Common Council considered an ordinance that had parents and the police chief surprised.
The ordinance would have allowed convicted sex offenders to participate in their children’s school activities.
However, the council voted against the measure in a unanimous vote. South Milwaukee has about 30 registered sex offenders, but neither police nor the school system knows how many have kids in school. City ordinance currently forbids them from setting foot on school property.
RI High Court Challenges Part of Sex Offender Law
newsblog.projo.com (Providence Journal) : RI High Court Challenges Part of Sex Offender Law.
The R.I. Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that part of the state's sex-offender law violates the offender's constitutional right to due process, in some cases.
The R.I. Supreme Court Tuesday ruled that part of the state's sex-offender law violates the offender's constitutional right to due process, in some cases.
The state's highest court ruled that part of a state law gives the Superior Court discretion to deny a sex offender the "right to a meaningful hearing" during an appeal.
The court said this "cannot be reconciled" with the constitutional right to due process.
The court, in its 62-page opinion, said the provisions of the challenged law means a court can limit witnesses and cross examination during the hearings held when a sex offender appeals the classification.
Some officials testified at legislative hearings this year that offenders with highest risk of re-offense -- Level III classification -- often seek to have their classification downgraded in appeals that last for months. Level III status triggers a wide range of public notification about the person's identity, address and sex-crime convictions. There is some public notification about Level II offenders as well. Level 1 offenders, considered low risk to re-offend, do not have public notification.
The high court, however, was not persuaded in the underlying appeal to overturn an Oct. 3, 2005, Superior Court decision that upheld the Level III classification of Thomas Germane. The opinion state that the Superior Court gave Germane a "meaningful hearing" during his appeal of his classification. The Supereme Court also denied Germane's other assertions, including that his due process rights were violated.
And the court also stated "we are not convinced" that people have "a fundamental right" to be free of sex offender registration and public notification requirements in the state's law governing such matters, "even if those requirements are intrusive and remain in place indefinitely."
SORNA Compliance Deadline Extended
burlingtonfreepress.com : Leahy applauds extension for state compliance with sex offender registration.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,Tuesday applauded the Justice Department’s decision to give a one-year extension to states to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), officials for Leahy said.
The Act was included as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which was signed into law in 2006, and required states to comply with the provisions by July of this year.
In March, Leahy and other congressional leaders urged Attorney General Eric Holder to extend the deadline for compliance. Under the provisions of SORNA, states and other jurisdictions are required to comply with certain sex offender registry provisions within three years of the passage of the Adam Walsh Act. To date, no state or jurisdiction has met the requirements mandated in SORNA.
The 2006 law permits the Attorney General to grant up to two one-year extensions of the deadline. The proposal approved by the Attorney General is the first one-year extension.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.,Tuesday applauded the Justice Department’s decision to give a one-year extension to states to comply with the provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), officials for Leahy said.
The Act was included as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which was signed into law in 2006, and required states to comply with the provisions by July of this year.
In March, Leahy and other congressional leaders urged Attorney General Eric Holder to extend the deadline for compliance. Under the provisions of SORNA, states and other jurisdictions are required to comply with certain sex offender registry provisions within three years of the passage of the Adam Walsh Act. To date, no state or jurisdiction has met the requirements mandated in SORNA.
The 2006 law permits the Attorney General to grant up to two one-year extensions of the deadline. The proposal approved by the Attorney General is the first one-year extension.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Are Sex Offender Laws Working?
Talkshoe.com Radio : Americans Reality Check: Are Sex Offender Laws Working?
A review of the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA and prior sex offender laws in the United States), how they work and how effective they are.
A review of the Adam Walsh Act (SORNA and prior sex offender laws in the United States), how they work and how effective they are.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Registry Adds Hurdle for Offenders Seeking Jobs
chron.com (Houston) : Registry Adds Hurdle for Offenders Seeking Jobs.
(note how the term "predator" is misused in the headline of this story)
In today’s economy, finding a job is tough for most people. But imagine what it would be like if you had the equivalent of a scarlet letter attached to your job applications.
A Rosenberg man who has been out of work for several months says that since the state recently added new information to its revamped online sex offender registry, it’s been more difficult for him to get a job.
Employers, who might have been willing to give the 25-year-old registered sex offender a chance, now refuse to hire him because they don’t want their business name and address listed on the registry, said Gordon, who asked that his last name not be used to protect his privacy.
The Texas Department of Public Safety added employment, school and occupational license information to offenders’ profiles about six months ago as part of a $1.2 million redesign of the online registry, which includes a new e-mail notification feature. DPS officials said states are required to post such information under federal law.
Making the information available to the public has struck a chord with registered sex offenders and their advocates who say it’s unnecessary and poses another hardship for offenders who want to be productive citizens. Crime victim advocates, however, argue the information is an another tool to protect the community.
Mary Sue Molnar, a founder of Texas Voices, a sex offender advocacy group, said more information means less safety if sex offenders can’t find work or lose their jobs. She said she gets e-mails daily from offenders and their loved ones asking for help.
“This is not keeping the public any safer,” said Molnar, whose son is a convicted sex offender. “It’s a feel-good law. It’s a tremendous problem. We want them to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives, and they can’t do that when they don’t have jobs.”
She said state and federal laws should distinguish between dangerous and non-dangerous sex offenders (but they do not do so). She said many sex offenders pose no risk to the community. Some are low-risk offenders who were in consensual relationships and the offender didn’t know the victim was under age. In some cases, they are married to the victim and they have children. Having their employer and school information online can be devastating to their families, she said.
Gordon, who is listed as a moderate risk on the state’s registry, agrees with Molnar. He is serving eight years of probation after accepting a plea deal on aggravated sexual assault of a child charges in 2004. He said he had a consensual relationship with a teenager who said she was 19. He believes only dangerous sex offenders should have employer and school information posted on the registry.
Gordon, who lives with his parents, said he is up front with employers about his criminal history and has had other jobs since his conviction. He said he follows all the requirements of his probation, including sex offender treatment. All he needs now is a job.
The information posted on the registry is required under the Adam Walsh Act signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. The act established a national sex offender registry and states were given three years to implement the law. The state attorney general has the authority to issue guidelines in interpreting and implementing the law.
(note how the term "predator" is misused in the headline of this story)
In today’s economy, finding a job is tough for most people. But imagine what it would be like if you had the equivalent of a scarlet letter attached to your job applications.
A Rosenberg man who has been out of work for several months says that since the state recently added new information to its revamped online sex offender registry, it’s been more difficult for him to get a job.
Employers, who might have been willing to give the 25-year-old registered sex offender a chance, now refuse to hire him because they don’t want their business name and address listed on the registry, said Gordon, who asked that his last name not be used to protect his privacy.
The Texas Department of Public Safety added employment, school and occupational license information to offenders’ profiles about six months ago as part of a $1.2 million redesign of the online registry, which includes a new e-mail notification feature. DPS officials said states are required to post such information under federal law.
Making the information available to the public has struck a chord with registered sex offenders and their advocates who say it’s unnecessary and poses another hardship for offenders who want to be productive citizens. Crime victim advocates, however, argue the information is an another tool to protect the community.
Mary Sue Molnar, a founder of Texas Voices, a sex offender advocacy group, said more information means less safety if sex offenders can’t find work or lose their jobs. She said she gets e-mails daily from offenders and their loved ones asking for help.
“This is not keeping the public any safer,” said Molnar, whose son is a convicted sex offender. “It’s a feel-good law. It’s a tremendous problem. We want them to reintegrate into society and lead productive lives, and they can’t do that when they don’t have jobs.”
She said state and federal laws should distinguish between dangerous and non-dangerous sex offenders (but they do not do so). She said many sex offenders pose no risk to the community. Some are low-risk offenders who were in consensual relationships and the offender didn’t know the victim was under age. In some cases, they are married to the victim and they have children. Having their employer and school information online can be devastating to their families, she said.
Gordon, who is listed as a moderate risk on the state’s registry, agrees with Molnar. He is serving eight years of probation after accepting a plea deal on aggravated sexual assault of a child charges in 2004. He said he had a consensual relationship with a teenager who said she was 19. He believes only dangerous sex offenders should have employer and school information posted on the registry.
Gordon, who lives with his parents, said he is up front with employers about his criminal history and has had other jobs since his conviction. He said he follows all the requirements of his probation, including sex offender treatment. All he needs now is a job.
The information posted on the registry is required under the Adam Walsh Act signed by President George W. Bush in 2006. The act established a national sex offender registry and states were given three years to implement the law. The state attorney general has the authority to issue guidelines in interpreting and implementing the law.
Friday, May 29, 2009
More Ohio Counties Charge Sex Offenders
chroniclet.com : Lorain County to charge sex offenders to register.
It’s a new trend throughout the state, and so far sheriffs in 18 other counties have implemented similar programs, Stammitti said. He expects other sheriffs will follow because of budget problems throughout the state.
If an offender makes less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level — $13,537 annually for an offender who is single with no dependents or $27,562 for an offender in a family of four — they won’t be required to pay, Stammitti said.
The fees will go into effect July 1.
Read more here:
http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/ohio-county-sheriffs-rape-sex-offenders/
It’s a new trend throughout the state, and so far sheriffs in 18 other counties have implemented similar programs, Stammitti said. He expects other sheriffs will follow because of budget problems throughout the state.
If an offender makes less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level — $13,537 annually for an offender who is single with no dependents or $27,562 for an offender in a family of four — they won’t be required to pay, Stammitti said.
The fees will go into effect July 1.
Read more here:
http://constitutionalfights.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/ohio-county-sheriffs-rape-sex-offenders/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
