Advertise your website below and on the left of our blog today

  • Is that a Sexual Predator hiding behind that badge? (08/16/2013)
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
  • Click for more info
Support us today by using the donation links on the left
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fees. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2013

MN - Park fee bill stumbles over sex offender amendment

Sen. Dan Hall
Original Article

03/15/2013

By Eric Roper

A bill allowing Minneapolis to charge developers a fee for parks stalled Wednesday in the Senate after a Republican senator tried to link it with sex offenders.

An amendment proposed by Sen. Dan Hall, R-Burnsville, would have prevented the city from charging developers a fee for parks built within 1,500 feet of a registered sex offender. Republicans successfully added that same amendment to the House version of the bill two weeks ago.

About 70 communities in the area already impose the fees. The sex offender restriction would only apply in Minneapolis, however.

Sen. Scott Dibble, the sponsor of the bill, moved to table the legislation after Hall proposed the amendment.

"We need to move on with the business of the day," said Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis. "We can come back to this amendment at another time. I will speak against it. I think it's ridiculous and accomplishes nothing."

The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board attorney, Brian Rice, told the Southwest Journal that the the provision was a "deal killer." Fifteen-hundred feet is about five to seven blocks, which could effectively prevent building new parks with developer fees in many parts of North Minneapolis.

Taxpayer dollars, incidentally, could still be used to build parks near sex offenders under the language of the amendment.

"We don't want to entice level 3 sex offenders with our children," Hall said. He later added that, "You can hear, you can be distracted by the kids playing. I can hear kids playing over a mile from my house. This is less than half of that. So members I would like you to consider the children of the City of Minneapolis, especially, and St. Paul."

Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, said in an interview last month that "they’re hoping that that can be used in a political campaign. And it’s gutter politics. It’s the worst of politics."


Thursday, February 28, 2013

MN - House attaches sex offender limit to Mpls. park fee bill

Original Article

02/28/2013

By Eric Roper

A discussion about Minneapolis park fees on the floor of the Minnesota House Monday took a peculiar detour when Republicans successfully linked the issue to dangerous sex offenders.

For years, Minneapolis has been trying to acquire the right to charge developers a fee to build or renovate parks near their projects. A technical change in state law to make that possible passed the House Monday, but an amendment could make the fee near-impossible to implement in some parts of Minneapolis.

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, pushed successfully for a tweak that prevents the fee from being levied for parks within 1,500 feet of a level-three sex offender's home. That's about five to seven blocks, she said.

Governments across the metro area (PDF) already levy park dedication fees. Minneapolis is proposing to charge $1,500 per unit on residential projects and at most $200 per employee on commercial projects.

"It's not guesswork to figure out that registered sex offenders shouldn't be playing near our children," Scott said.
- Another ignorant politician who thinks all ex-sex offenders are child molesting, pedophile predators who love to hang out in parks or playgrounds just waiting to pounce, which is so far from the truth.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, added "a green vote will help protect these vulnerable children. And a red vote will fail to do so."
- This is the same mentality as a president wanting to wage war and saying "either you are for us or against us."

Rep. Peter Fischer, DFL-Maplewood, countered that while the amendment is "trying to protect people from a sexual predator, you're also denying everybody else that's very close to that location the opportunity to have a park that they're able to get to."

The author of the bill, Rep. Frank Hornstein, urged that the issue should be first vetted by the public safety committee. But it was nonetheless attached to the bill in a vote of 86-43. Hornstein expects it will be reviewed further when the House and Senate bills are resolved.

The amendment could have a major impact on the ability to fund parks in some parts of the city such as North Minneapolis, which has the largest concentration of sex offenders, according to the Southwest Journal. Incidentally, since the language only addresses developer fees paying for parks near sex offenders, taxpayer dollars could likely still be used.

They’re hoping that that can be used in a political campaign," Hornstein said later in an interview. "And it’s gutter politics. It’s the worst of politics. And I’m glad that at least 43 of my colleagues resisted that.”
- And you are not using this to make yourself look better for your campaign or career?  This is "the pot calling the kettle black."

Here's the text of the change:

"Park land acquired or developed with fees paid under this section must not be within 1500 feet of the residence of a person designated as a risk level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes, section 244.052, subdivision 3."


Wednesday, December 14, 2011

OK - Supervision program is big moneymaker for DAs

District Attorney Tim Harris
Original Article

12/13/2011

By JACLYN COSGROVE

But some say it's a conflict of interest to have prosecutors overseeing offenders.

Editor's note: Oklahoma Watch is an independent, nonprofit investigative reporting team that collaborates with other media organizations.

District attorneys across the state are scrambling to pay their office bills by increasingly relying on a supervision program that critics say presents a conflict of interest, lacks accountability and hasn't demonstrated it has improved public safety.

Under the district attorney supervision program, about 38,000 offenders each pay an average of $40 a month on top of court costs.
- What?  This is insane!  38,000 * 40 = $1,520,000 for one month, then multiply that by 12 months equals $18,240,000.  Yes I'd say it's a big money making scheme!

During the 2012 fiscal year, district attorneys generated about $14 million in revenue - almost 20 percent of their budgets - by supervising an estimated 27,600 people on misdemeanor cases and about 10,500 on felony cases.

"Philosophically, I don't believe that an entity that is prosecuting the individual should be supervising the individual," said Bob Ravitz, Oklahoma County public defender. "When you have the DA supervising, they're the ones who decide to file charges or not. They have a vested financial interest if that person is convicted or not and put on probation."
- Remind me of the cash for kids judge.

Prosecutors don't disagree that the program has flaws, but they say they need it to keep their offices afloat because of budget cuts and a drop in revenue from the bogus check fund.
- So they need to exploit people in order to keep money in their pockets, is that what they are saying?

In the past three years, the state has cut funding to prosecutors by about 24 percent.

Before the program was put in place, the Department of Corrections administered most supervision programs. Probation intakes are down about 50 percent since district attorneys expanded their supervision programs to include felonies.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris said he was reluctant to use the DA supervision program and told lawmakers at the time that it created a conflict of interest.

"They said other DAs in the state are doing this, if you don't get on board and use the tool we've given you, quit crying about your budget woes," Harris said.

Trent Baggett, assistant executive director of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Council, agreed that the program creates an appearance of a conflict of interest and said it's important for DAs to make sure they are doing things in an even-handed way.

"Would it be a whole lot better system if we were funded entirely by one entity where we didn't have to rely on these additional funds?" Baggett asked. "Absolutely. Absolutely, it would be great if we could do that, but you know what? That's the hand we're dealt."

The District Attorneys Council will meet Thursday to discuss and possibly adopt guidelines or standards for the program.

The Legislature created the district attorney supervision program in 2005 as an alternative to Department of Corrections supervision.

If a judge gives someone a deferred or suspended sentence but doesn't order them to DOC supervision, then, according to law, the person "shall be required to pay the district attorney a monthly supervision fee" of $40.

"We are very protective of our DA supervision fees, and I really don't want it (the program) to be a sham, because if for whatever reason the Legislature were to take this tool away from me, I don't really know how I would operate," Harris said.

Harris' office reported to the District Attorneys Council that it collected $1,109,435 in the 2011 fiscal year from the supervision fees.

Candice Ramsey, director of Tulsa County's district attorney supervision program, said she believes she and about 11 other staff members who work in her office are making a difference for the people in their program.

Every week, Ramsey takes a stack of about 200 files and starts checking on people in the supervision program.

Every five weeks, a defendant on the program gets a call from Ramsey or someone else in her office to check in on their case. Each employee has a list of 19 items they have to go over with every defendant in the program.

"If I can reach them, it could be a really quick phone call, which is, everything looks great on our end, no new charges or arrests, you're in good standing with our office," Ramsey said. "... If there's nothing to be changed, we let them know we'll be contacting them in about five weeks."

Probation and parole officers under DOC must create individualized programs for each offender based on their criminogenic needs. This isn't part of Ramsey's job.

Instead, Ramsey and her fellow employees are charged with ensuring defendants have completed their court requirements, such as any drug or alcohol assessments and treatment recommended from those assessment, urine analysis tests, and restitution payments.

District attorneys say they are primarily supervising misdemeanor offenses, which no one supervised before, and low-level felonies.

During the 2011 fiscal year, district attorneys supervised an estimated 27,600 people on misdemeanor cases and about 10,500 on felony cases.

But these numbers are only estimates. When the Legislature created the program, it did not require district attorneys to report anything about the program, such as how many people were in the program, what types of offenders they were supervising or what tactics they were using to supervise.

It didn't actually do anything other than create the program via two sentences in a state statute. Nowhere in the statute is "supervision" defined.

This leaves the possibility open that a district attorney could simply take $40 a month from someone and not provide any services to that person.

"I hear that tired argument over and over and over again," Baggett said. "Now do I personally know what all 27 elected district attorneys are doing in their probation services in all 77 counties? No, but at the same time, I would want to see who that person is and where that is happening before I would put a lot of stock in that."

Allen Smallwood, a Tulsa attorney and past president of the Oklahoma Bar Association, is more skeptical that some district attorneys are doing more than collecting a fee.

"I've never had any of my clients tell me there was any degree of supervision other than taking their checks," Smallwood said.

Without any standardization or consistency and evaluation, criminal justice senior policy analyst Robert Coombs said it's virtually impossible to know whether the program is achieving a certain set of standards.

"It just makes it that much harder to know that everyone is on the same page, that everyone is doing things the same way, that you're maintaining a consistent amount of quality across the board," he said.


Tuesday, December 6, 2011

MA - Lynn seeks to kick out sex offender

Original Article

12/02/2011

By Jeff McMenemy

LYNN — A Level 3 sex offender who recently bought a home within 1,000 feet of the Shoemaker Elementary School and Gowdy Park insists he is not a danger to anyone and believes it’s unfair that city officials plan to try to force him to move.

I have every legal right to live here,” [name withheld] said during an interview Thursday on the front steps of his [address withheld] home in Lynn.

I’m trying to adapt within a community. I don’t believe I’m a threat to anyone.”

But that hasn’t stopped Lynn city officials from preparing to send [name withheld] a letter ordering him to move from his home, the first such letter they are writing under the city’s sex offender ordinance.

Assistant City Solicitor James Lamanna said Thursday he will send a letter to [name withheld] by today at the latest informing him that as a Level 3 sex offender — which is defined by the state’s Sex Offender Registry Board as someone having a “high risk to re-offend” — he is barred from living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or other private or public recreational facilities.

City officials can fine [name withheld] $300 a day if he refuses to move out of the house within 30 days of receiving the notice, according to Lamanna, who said this is the first time city officials have used the ordinance, passed in its latest form in December 2010, to try to force a Level 3 sex offender to move out of a neighborhood.

This is the first time we’ve sent a notice to vacate,” Lamanna said. “We’ve had a number of Level 3 sex offenders come into the office and look at the maps to see where they can live.”

Lamanna said city officials modeled the ordinance after others that have withstood legal challenges.

But [name withheld], who was convicted in 2008 of trying to entice a 14-year-old boy into his car in Revere, according to police and court reports, says he will fight the law in court if the city tries to force him to move.

I have every right to be here. I stay in my house. I don’t bother people,” he said after checking his mailbox for the anticipated letter from the city. “They can’t do this to me.”

But Gretchen Hosker, the program director of the Little Theatre Kindergarten, said Thursday night she immediately sent out notices to all the parents of the children who attend the nursery school and kindergarten, which is located just around the corner from where the Level 3 sex offender lives.

My first concern was how did it get to the point where he was able to move in when we have this ordinance in place,” Hosker, who’s worked at the school for 24 years, said.

She stressed that “safety is always number one in my mind,” and school employees remain “super vigilant” to make sure children are always safe.

We are always very careful,” she said. “We always count children when we’re in school, and when we go outside.”

Parents of children at the school said they were glad to get the information that a Level 3 sex offender was living nearby, Hosker said.

The ones living in the neighborhood don’t understand why they weren’t notified before I got the letter,” she said.

Police Chief Kevin Coppinger said Thursday that he checked and confirmed that [name withheld] was violating the city ordinance by living where he lives, but the convicted sex offender has complied with state criminal laws by notifying police that he has moved into the neighborhood.

Coppinger said the police can’t charge [name withheld] criminally for violating the city ordinance, but they can notify his probation officer to tell him or her that the Level 3 sex offender is violating the city ordinance.

Patricia Riley, principal of the Shoemaker Elementary School, located on Regina Road, said City Council President Tim Phelan and Ward 1 City Councilor Wayne Lozzi, who represents the ward where the Level 3 sex offender lives, are holding a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the school to talk about the issue.

But she stressed that safety measures have long been in place that will keep the children safe.

We feel the students are very safe here,” she said Thursday. “The doors are closed and locked at all times, and even the parents have to sign in.”

Phelan sent a letter to the City Solicitor asking him to send a letter to the Level 3 sex offender after learning he was living near the school.

Phelan said if [name withheld] chooses to fight the issue it could be the first real test of the city’s ordinance. He said communities across the country have faced similar challenges in court and often the offenders have gone to the American Civil Liberties Union for representation.

They’ll argue that he has the right to civil liberty,” Phelan said. “I personally think that once someone does something to a kid or a child, they lose those rights. It’s time to protect the kid and I think the city should aggressively pursue this.”


Monday, September 5, 2011

AZ - Inmate Visits Now Carry Added Cost in Arizona

Original Article

People just do not understand, prison is all about making money! If this state is able to do this, eventually all states will follow, watch and see. And they say "crime doesn't pay?" Well, that all depends on how you look at it! Like registration fees, this is nothing but extortion and/or exploitation to make more money for the prison business!

09/04/2011

By ERICA GOODE

For the Arizona Department of Corrections, crime has finally started to pay.

New legislation allows the department to impose a $25 fee on adults who wish to visit inmates at any of the 15 prison complexes that house state prisoners. The one-time “background check fee” for visitors, believed to be the first of its kind in the nation, has angered prisoner advocacy groups and family members of inmates, who in many cases already shoulder the expense of traveling long distances to the remote areas where many prisons are located.

David C. Fathi, director of the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the fee “mind-boggling” and said that while it was ostensibly intended to help the state — the money will be used to repair and maintain the prisons — it could ultimately have a negative effect on public safety.

We know that one of the best things you can do if you want people to go straight and lead a law-abiding life when they get out of prison is to continue family contact while they’re in prison,” he said. “Talk about penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

One woman, whose brother is a prisoner at the Eyman complex in Florence, said that most of her family lives out of state, so the fee is an additional burden on top of the travel costs.

What will happen is that people will just stop visiting,” said the woman, adding that most prisoners “live for” visits from relatives. Because some friends of the family still do not know of her brother’s incarceration, she asked to be identified only by her first name, Shauna. She was one of several dozen family members of inmates who complained to Middle Ground Prison Reform, a group based in Tempe, about the fee.

In a lawsuit filed last month against the Corrections Department, Middle Ground said the fee was simply a pretext for raising money “for general public purposes” and as such was unconstitutional because it amounted to a special tax on a single group.

Middle Ground has also filed suit over another provision of the law, which imposes a 1 percent charge on deposits made to a prisoner’s spending account.

Donna Leone Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground, said she thought that state legislators created the background check fee “out of sheer financial desperation” at a time when the state faces huge budget shortfalls.

This was a scheme — in my mind, a harebrained scheme — to try to come up with the money,” she said.

Wendy Baldo, chief of staff for the Arizona Senate, confirmed that the fees were intended to help make up the $1.6 billion deficit the state faced at the beginning of the year.
- So basically the tax payers are paying for the governments mistakes?

We were trying to cut the budget and think of ways that could help get some services for the Department of Corrections,” Ms. Baldo said. She added that the department “needed about $150 million in building renewal and maintenance and prior to this year, it just wasn’t getting done and it wasn’t a safe environment for the people who were in prison and certainly for the people who worked there.”
- So why must you continue to punish the down trodden?  If you need the money, tax the rich, they have tons of money that prisoners and families do not!  Hell, why don't all you in politics take a pay cut to help pay for your corruption and mismanagement of money?

Ms. Baldo said the money would not actually pay for background checks but would go into a fund for maintenance and repairs to the prisons.

Barrett Marson, a spokesman for the Corrections Department, said in an e-mail that it was the department’s policy not to comment on pending litigation.

Although there have been some calls and letters from potential visitors inquiring about the fee and how to pay it, no complaints had been reported from inmates, Mr. Marson said. The department has not determined whether the number of visitors to the prisons has changed since the charge went into effect, he added.
- Well, it's common sense that after a while, due to the economy, people will not be able to pay the extortion fee, so they will stop visiting loved ones, and those in prison, may, due to not being able to see family, and feeling all alone, may commit suicide, God forbid!

Maintenance funds for our buildings are scarce in this difficult economic time,” he said. “A $25 visitation fee helps to ensure our prisons remain safe environments for staff, inmates and visitors.”

Ms. Hamm, the Middle Ground director who is also a retired lower court judge and married to a former inmate, said that an earlier proposal presented to a legislative committee would have imposed the background check fee on everyone who visited inmates, including babies and children. But in the end, the Legislature limited the fees to people over 18.

The law also allows the Corrections Department to waive all or part of the background check fee in certain circumstances — for example, when an applicant just wants permission to telephone an inmate.

Ms. Hamm said that research by her organization could not find any other example of a state prison system imposing a fee on visitors.

The Arizona Corrections Department, Ms. Hamm said, has run perfunctory checks on visitors for years. In its application form, the department requires visitors to provide their name, date of birth and a driver’s license or other photo identification number. Providing a Social Security number on the application is optional, and no fingerprints are required.

Another state agency, the Department of Public Safety, conducts free background checks for people who want to review their own records and who provide fingerprints, said Carrick Cook, a spokesman.

The Public Safety Department charges $20 for criminal background checks of people who are hired as volunteers for state agencies, and $24 for checks on paid state workers, both of which involve fingerprinting. A fingerprint clearance card, required for child care and foster care workers in Arizona, costs $65 for volunteers and $69 for paid employees.

Shauna, whose brother is at the Eyman complex, said she learned about the fee after she filed applications for her brother’s son, a Mormon missionary in Kentucky who wanted to visit his father, along with a friend and two other relatives.

She was told that the best way to pay the fee was electronically, through Western Union, but was unable to get the system to work, she said.

She was then advised to send a money order. Despite confirmation by United Parcel Service that the package had been delivered, the Corrections Department told her that the $100 payment — four $25 money orders for four visitors — had not been received, she said.

Another $100 payment was sent, and on Friday — months after she began the application process — she finally got confirmation of the payment from the department.

I have now spent $200 of my own money to get family in,” she said, adding that it could take up to 60 days for the department to approve the applications.


Thursday, May 14, 2009

NJ - Lawmakers want inmates to pay jail, monitoring costs

View the article here

05/14/2009

By Jonathan Tamari - Inquirer Trenton Bureau

Some New Jersey lawmakers want convicted criminals to pay for their confinement or electronic monitoring.

Two bills would pass the costs of state jails onto inmates and the expense of electronic monitoring devices onto sex offenders required to wear them.

A plan from State Sen. James Beach (Contact) (D., Camden) would charge state prisoners for the cost of their incarceration, an average of $38,700 per year. Beach said he had gotten the idea from within his district, where the Camden County Correctional Facility assesses a user fee of $5 per day for room and board and $10 per day for use of the infirmary.
- So what if they refuse to pay this extortion fee?

The fees generate about $300,000 a year.

"There's a misperception that everyone in jail is poor, and that's just not true," Beach said. "Why should we as taxpayers foot the bill for someone that did something wrong and end up in jail?"

With the cost of incarceration approaching $40,000 per year, Beach said, "I think we should be able to do pretty good."

A bill sponsored by State Sen. Joseph Pennacchio (Contact) (R., Morris) and Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney (Contact) (D., Gloucester) would require those convicted sex offenders who must wear electronic monitoring devices to pay the costs of that equipment, or about $2,900 per year.

"It can be quite an expense for the state, an expense that, in my view, the state shouldn't have to deal with," Pennacchio said at a hearing on the measure.

About 209 sex offenders in New Jersey must be monitored. They are generally those considered the highest threat to safety who can still be released from confinement.

Pennsylvania charges all people who require electronic monitoring, including sex offenders, for the cost, said Leo Dunn, a spokesman for the state's parole board.

At least eight other states make sex offenders pay for monitoring devices, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

There is also long-running movement among some county jails to charge inmates. Pennsylvania does not do it statewide, but several counties do.

"It is popping up across the country," said Rick Neimiller, director of administration and communications for the American Jail Association. "Especially now they're looking at it, with the economy."
- It should be the other way around, if the state wants to put someone in prison, for some small crime, then the state should pay for it.  Now, if they can charge people for their incarceration, you can bet more people will be thrown into prison, so the prison business continues to grow!

Critics, however, said charging inmates would put a burden on both the prisoners and their families, who are often poor.

"It discourages people trying to put their lives back together," said Elizabeth Alexander, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project.
- Just more modern day slavery, IMO.  Many will not be able to pay for this, so therefore, they will be left in prison, or faced with paying fines for life.  I thought slavery was over with?  Apparently not!

People heading to prison often owe fines, restitution, and child support, and have little income while incarcerated, said Ed Martone, director of public education and policy for the New Jersey Association on Correction.

An "infinitesimal" number of prisoners have book deals, TV movies, or other perks that make them rich, Martone said.

"The cost idea has come up before, and it's usually dropped just as quickly" in New Jersey, Martone said. His group contracts with the state to run halfway houses and works on AIDS and domestic-violence issues.

In New Jersey state prisons, the average prisoner account has $102.37, said Deirdre Fedkenheuer, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Corrections.

For most inmates, that is most of the money they have after paying fines, court fees, victims' funds, and other charges, she said. In prison they earn, at most, 80 cents an hour, Fedkenheuer said.

"Generally what we're talking about is people who are pretty indigent," she said. "What they earn is next to nothing."

Lawmakers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania have proposed plans before to charge fees in state prisons, but none became law.

Georgia's legislature considered a similar bill this year.

In both New Jersey bills, exceptions would be allowed for people who couldn't afford the charges, but neither measure spells out where the line would be drawn. The sex-offender bill leaves the decision up to the chair of the parole board; the state prison plan lets the commissioner of corrections decide.

Martone said he was concerned about leaving the decisions up to one person.

The Berks County prison, in Pennsylvania, has been charging inmates for room, board, and more since 1991.

After an initial physical, for example, it costs inmates $5 to see a doctor and $3 to see a nurse, except for chronic illnesses and accidents. Prisoners who want more than one haircut every two months must also pay.

The jail charges first-time inmates $10 per day, and asks them to work out a payment plan when they leave, warden George A. Wagner said. If the payment isn't made, the fees go up for later stints in the facility. But the jail is planning to move toward charging a flat $45 fee when inmates enter. Those who don't pay will have fewer privileges and get only basic supplies, Wagner said.

"The whole concept was to instill financial responsibility in inmates," Wagner said. "It wasn't simply to make money nor to put a financial burden on inmates."
- Yeah right.  Put some sugar coating on it, and pass the blame onto someone else.  It's all about making money and punishing people, period.  I do not care what you call it.

He said those who left but paid back their debts proved less likely to return to jail.


Tuesday, May 5, 2009

CT - Brookfield selectmen delay sex offender ordinance vote

View the article here

Hell, why not make the fine $1 million, and when they can't pay it, send them to prison?  That is your ultimate goal, is it not?  Making someone pay fees like this, is wrong!  No other criminal has to pay fees like this, so that would mean it's cruel and unusual punishment.

05/05/2009

By Ethan Fry

Brookfield selectmen ask for changes before taking a vote

BROOKFIELD -- The Board of Selectmen delayed action on a proposed sex offender ordinance after questions were raised at a public hearing about the law's deterrent effect and legality.

"It's a toothless ordinance," said Steve DeVaux, a town resident who asked selectmen to consider enacting a sex offender law in January.

"There's been much discussion in the community of, 'So what's a $100 fine?'" he said.

State law governs how much towns can fine for ordinances.

Town Attorney Thomas Beecher said that fine could be $100 or $250, depending on interpretation. In the ordinance as proposed Monday, the fine was $100.

Selectman Jerry Murphy asked Beecher whether they could change the fine to $250. Beecher said they could, but since such a change would be "substantive," a new public hearing would be required.

"I'd like to do that," Murphy said. "Because $100 is sort of a joke."

DeVaux asked whether the ordinance could say the fine was "the maximum" allowed under state law, so it would increase if the state law changed. Beecher said no.

Earlier in the hearing, Board of Education member Ron Jaffe urged selectmen to delay any action until the school board's legal counsel could review the ordinance.

"Do you see a conflict?" First Selectman Robert Silvaggi asked.

"I'm not a lawyer," Jaffe replied. "I'm reluctant to say yes or no. We really have to have the legal support for the school system" consulted, he said.

"There's certainly not any need to rush into it," Silvaggi said.

Murphy then asked if selectmen could pass the ordinance contingent on the school board's approval, but Beecher said they couldn't.

Ultimately, the selectmen unanimously voted to set down the ordinance for another public hearing June 1, before their next regular meeting.

In that time, Beecher said he'll make the changes requested and send it to Silvaggi, who will then send it to the school board for review.

Silvaggi proposed the ordinance during a special meeting of the Board of Selectmen last month. A number of other towns in the area -- Danbury, New Milford and Ridgefield -- have enacted similar ordinances in the past few years.


Friday, April 24, 2009

OH - State of Ohio, extorting money and keeping the money making machine rolling!

Click the image below to enlarge


You will notice, in the second video, they said sex offenders who cannot afford it, will not be forced to pay it, and if they tried to force some insane fee like this on me, I'd not be paying it, they can take me to court!





Thursday, April 23, 2009

OH - Sex Offenders Must Pay To Register In Butler Co.

View the article here

Tell me, what other criminal has to pay a fee one to four times a year to be on a list they do not want to be on in the first place?  Usually when one pays a fee, it's something you wanted.

04/23/2009

New Policy Allowed Under Ohio Law, Sheriff Says

HAMILTON - Sex offenders will be required to pay each time they appear for their court-ordered registration, under a new Butler County policy.

Sheriff Richard Jones said that convicted sex offenders will be billed $25 for their initial registration, each time they register a new address with the court, or verify their current address.
- And people say crime doesn't pay.  It depends on how you look at it!

The policy, which goes into effect June 1, is allowed under Ohio law, Jones said, as long as offenders are not billed more than $25 per registration or $100 per year.

Convicted sex offenders who can show proof that their income falls beneath the federal poverty level may be granted a waiver, the sheriff said.

Fees collected under the new policy will be used to help offset the county's expenses for registration and notification of sex offenders, Jones said.


OH - Local sex offenders face tougher reporting rules

View the article here

04/23/2009

By Brad Bauer

About half of Washington County's 111 registered sex offenders are waiting on the state's Supreme Court to decide if tougher reporting requirements enacted last year will stand.

Washington County Public Defender Ray Smith said 50 to 60 local sex offenders challenged the 2008 law, which required all sex offenders to be reclassified under a new three-tier system.

That system mandates longer reporting times and increased community notifications for many offenders once considered low-level. Three local individuals set to fall off the registry this year are now subject to five additional years of reporting because of the change.
- And this is additional punishment, and the constitution strictly forbids ex post facto (after the fact) punishment, yet they continue to pass, or attempt to pass, unconstitutional laws!

"Judge (Susan) Boyer and (Ed) Lane both denied our motions that this should not apply to anyone convicted and sentenced prior to when this went into effect," Smith said. "The 4th District Court of Appeals also denied our motion. It's now up to the Supreme Court to decide if this is constitutional or not."

"I can't see how it can be constitutional. How can you change the rules in the middle of the game?" Smith said.

With the exception of those who have moved away, every person who was ever registered as a sex offender in Washington County remains on the sheriff's registry.

Prior to the change, Washington County had 20 sexual predators, the most serious offenders under the old system. There are now 42 individuals labeled in the "most serious" tier III category.

Smith said the new system lumps many low-level offenders in with the most serious offenders. The new law would require individuals who had previous reporting requirements for 10 years to report for life.

Under the old law, judges held special hearings and determined the level of restrictions for offenders on an individual basis. Restrictions are now mandated and based on the type of offense.

The Washington County Sheriff's Office is responsible for keeping tabs on all sex offenders who live, work or attend school in the county. It has become a full-time job for Deputy Patrice Tornes.

"It became full time last year when the new law went into effect," she said. "I began to notice it was taking more and more of each day."

Tornes said each day begins by mailing notices to offenders who are due for a required "in-person" visit to the sheriff's office to confirm or update information.

"I'll have five to seven (offenders) popping in on a daily basis," Tornes said. "Anytime there is an address change, e-mail address registered, job change or a vehicle registered to them or made available to them, we are required to know about it."

When upper-tier offenders move, it requires notifications to be mailed to anyone living within 1,250 feet.

"That's when we get the most calls and questions," Tornes said. "Depending on where they move, you're talking about anywhere from 100 homes to 30 homes."

Tornes said she does her best to answer calls from concerned residents.

"They want to know if (the offender) is allowed to live here, allowed to go to PTA meetings, allowed to have kids in 4-H or soccer," she said. "I got one call from a person who wanted to know why (an offender) was allowed to have kids."

Tornes said most people want to know what the offender did to be put on the registry.

"I don't give any information about the victim, but I tell them what I can about the crime," she said. "Unless these people have some kind of parole restrictions, they're pretty much allowed to carry on normal lives as long as they keep up with their reporting requirements."

Tornes said sex offenders cannot live within 1,000 feet of a school, but can pick up their child at a school or attend a game there.

Smith said there is no time line on when the Supreme Court could make a decision in the case.

At this time last year there were 90 sex offenders in the county.


Tuesday, July 15, 2008

CO - Leaders could raise fees to up revenue

View the article here

07/15/2008

Community forum results to be unveiled at City Council meeting

LONGMONT — Park fees. Recreation fees. Museum fees. Court fees. Permit fees.

They all could go up next year as city leaders look for ways to balance the 2009 budget and cover an estimated $1.6 million gap in next year’s projected $57 million general fund.

While city leaders likely will have to consider cutting staff and services, they also likely will consider increases in fees that residents pay.

To help cope with the gap between revenue and expenses, city leaders in June launched a series of forums to gather feedback from residents about their priorities for next year’s budget.

During the forums, many residents said the city should increase existing fees or create new fees before cutting services. Many people also said city services should bring in at least as much money as they cost.

With fuel, utilities, salaries and benefits costing more each year, residents “can see at a certain point you do have to buck it up and realize costs are going to go up,” Longmont City Councilman Sean McCoy said Monday.

But, he said, while there’s a certain place for making services pay for themselves, that’s not always possible without pricing people out.

Councilman Gabe Santos agreed that not all city services can be cost-neutral, but he said it’s a question of “what we should do and what can be done.”

With the city’s current budget situation, city leaders need to consider raising fees, Santos said, but they also can’t increase fees so much that people can’t use city facilities.

“This whole budget process is going to be a struggle,” he said.

The results of the community budget forums will be presented to the Longmont City Council at 7 tonight. City officials also will present a list of recommendations to increase city revenue by increasing fees, fines and rates.

That list includes:

Sales tax vendor fee: The city allows business owners to keep 3 percent of the total sales tax they pay to the city — up to $100 with each filing — to help cover costs of collecting and filing sales tax. City officials are considering lowering the percentage businesses can keep or doing away with the fee altogether. If the city lowered it to 2 percent, it would mean about $53,000 more in sales tax revenue to the city’s general fund. If the city does away with it altogether, it would be about $233,000 more in general fund revenue.

Parks maintenance fee: The city could start charging a fee on residential utility bills — about 34,000 households in Longmont — to help maintain city parks. Each dollar on each monthly bill would generate about $408,000 per year.

Union Reservoir fees: The city budgeted nearly $369,000 to open and operate Union Reservoir this year and expects to receive about $200,000 in revenue. Increasing the $6 daily vehicle admission fee to $7, for example, would bring in another $38,300, while increasing it to $8 would generate $56,400 more revenue.

Museum fees: The Longmont Museum & Cultural Center does not charge admission. A $3 admission fee could probably generate about $30,000 in revenue. A different option, officials say, is to charge a $5 admission fee to popular, high-profile exhibits. Doing so could bring in about $12,000 in revenue per exhibit.

Municipal court fines: Another option is to increase court fines for a host of violations, such as speeding, littering, curfew violations, careless driving, not wearing a seatbelt and not leashing a dog. Longmont’s fines are lower than in many other Front Range cities, city officials said.

Surcharge on municipal convictions: City officials are considering a surcharge, perhaps $15 to $25, on all municipal violations. Based on the number of tickets officers issued in 2007, a $15 surcharge would generate about $71,000 and a $25 surcharge would bring in about $118,000.

Sex offender registration fees: State law allows communities to charge convicted sex offenders a fee when they register. Longmont does not. On average, about 55 new registered sex offenders move to Longmont each year; there currently are 222 registered sex offenders living in Longmont. By charging $80 for newly registered offenders and $20 for quarterly and annual re-registration, police officials expect they could generate about $13,000 each year.

Vehicle impound fees: The Longmont Police Department impounded 936 cars last year. Police officials could charge $50 per junked and abandoned car that is impounded.

Animal impound fees: Animal control officers impounded about 700 animals in 2007. A $50 per animal impound fee would help offset the costs, police officials say.

Permit fees: The city charges $50 for a “use of public places” permit. City officials are considering increasing that fee and could start requiring permits for events that don’t currently need permits. Also, the city might create a fee for permits allowing alcohol in public places.

Liquor license fees: State law limits the rates for liquor licenses, but that law allows for license rates to increase in January. Raising the license fee would generate another $4,500 next year.

Rachel Carter can be reached at 303-684-5216 or rcarter@times-call.com.


Thursday, June 19, 2008

NH - N.H. Court Finds Sex Offender Registry Fee Legal

View the article here

Legal extortion is what this is... Here is the actual ruling on this case.

06/19/2008

CONCORD (AP) ― New Hampshire's Supreme Court says it's legal to force sex offenders to pay for the state sex offender registry.

The court ruled Thursday that such payments are a legitimate user fee, not an unfair tax.

The ruling came in the case of Philip Horner, who was convicted in 2000 of five counts of sexual assault. Horner argued that because the registry serves the general public, it was unfair to charge offenders $34 a year to maintain it.

In a unanimous decision, the high court disagreed, saying the fee is applied directly to a service that would not be necessary if there were no sex offenders.


NV - Bill wants sex offenders to pay registration fees

View the article here

06/18/2008

Convicted sex offenders, sexual predators and other convicted felons in Nye County who are required by law to register with local law enforcement agencies upon release from incarceration may have to pay a fee to register in the future.
- Extortion! If they don't pay the fee? A fee is usually something you pay for something you want, not something you don't. This is nothing but extortion. Pay me money to stay out of jail!!!

Nye County commissioners will hold a public hearing to discuss amending Nye County Code Title 9, which addresses public peace, morals and welfare, to include the registration fees.

In addition, under Nevada law, convicted sex offenders are classified into four tiers numbered from 0 to 3 based on their assessed likelihood of recidivism and threat to the community.

Although Tier 0 and 1 sex offenders are required to register with law enforcement agencies, they are not required to notify community organizations of their address and other information.

Tier 2 and 3 offenders, however, are required to register with the local law enforcement agencies and notify schools, religious and youth organizations, and prosecutors and courts of their status.

Should the offenders change their addresses, they are required to register.

In addition, the information given to law enforcement is validated by personal visits from deputies four times a year.

A convicted offender has 48 hours upon release from a penal institution to register.

Failure by a convicted sex offender to register, re-register or provide valid information is a felony offense.

The information given when sex offenders register includes name, any aliases, year of birth, a physical description, residential and work addresses, the name convicted under, a description of their conviction including the state, county, city or township of conviction, where they served hospital or penal time for the conviction and a photograph if available.

Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo proposed the fees in response to the classification requirements for sex offenders being changed by the Nevada Legislature.

As a result of the changes, offenders formerly classified as Tier 1 and 2 offenders will be re-classified as Tier 3 offenders, increasing the number of registrations that need to be processed.

DeMeo explained that each registration takes approximately half an hour of paid staff time. In addition, the deputies are using gas and additional time to validate addresses. The sheriff also pointed out the software used by the sheriff's office to log, update and track registration information costs $7,000 a year alone.

Under the proposition, convicted offenders would be asked to pay a $75 dollar fee for their initial registration.

Re-registration will cost $35, an address or information change will cost $15, and validations will cost $25 upon completion.

Although the fees proposed by DeMeo won't offset the anticipated increase in costs, the sheriff said they could potentially help.

"If they don't have the money, we're still going to process them," DeMeo explained. "We're not going to refuse to register. And we're going to look at a person's indigence."

DeMeo said if an offender doesn't have the cash on hand to pay the fee, the sheriff's office would put him on a payment plan.

The fee otherwise would be due at the time of registration.

DeMeo said Nye County is the first jurisdiction to propose the imposition of fees.


Sunday, June 8, 2008

ME - Sex offender law up for town vote

View the article here

06/08/2008

NORWAY - A proposed ordinance to restrict the areas where sex offenders can reside or visit will go before voters at the annual town meeting on June 16, selectmen decided Thursday.

The ordinance defines a registered sex offender as a person convicted of committing a sex offense against a child under the age of 18 and required to register for life.

Such offenders would be forbidden from residing or loitering within 2,500 feet of the property line of a school or 1,000 feet of the property line of a day-care center. These offenders would also be forbidden from entering the premises of a school or day-care center without the permission of the school administration or day-care owner.

Chief Robert Federico of the Norway Police Department said a recently added clause in the ordinance would require sex offenders to pay a $25 per-reporting fee, payable at the time of initial registration and each address verification thereafter. The fees would benefit the Rape Education and Crisis Hotline.
- More extortion! Make sure you pay it and sign it "UNDER DURESS!"

Federico said the majority of Norway's sex offenders are required to report once every 90 days, although some are required to report only once a year.
- So they have to basically pay $100.00 per year, and another $25 if they are forced to move. Sounds like a HUGE money making scam to me!!!

If the ordinance passes, it will not apply to offenders currently living within the zones around schools and day-care centers. It will also not apply to offenders if a school or day-care center is built or moved to within 2,500 or 1,000 feet of their residence.

Violation of the ordinance would be a civil offense, and the town could assess a minimum $500 fine against the offender for each day a violation continues.

Scott Westberry said he proposed the ordinance, in part, to get his brother, a sex offender, to move out of town. Westberry's brother has since moved to Pennsylvania.

"If it gets passed, it was well worth it," Westberry said.

mlangeveld@sunjournal.com


Wednesday, February 6, 2008

IN - Sex offender registry fee OK'd

View the article here

02/06/2008

The Porter County Sheriff's Department will now charge an annual $50 fee for every sex offender listed on the department's registry Web site.

Porter County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance to establish a "sex and violent offender administration fund" during Tuesday's meeting.
- What about a criminal fund for all other criminals?

"(This fund) is something that's all over the state of Indiana," said Commissioner Robert Harper.

Last year, the state legislature passed a bill establishing fees to go toward the state's sex and violent offenders administration fund, County Attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger said.

Offenders will pay an annual $50 fee. Also, there is a $5 fee for every change of address.

The collected fees will go toward the department's registration work, maintenance of the offender registry Web site and "education and equipment for sheriff's personnel as it relates to the registration of sex and violent offenders," the ordinance states.

The sheriff's department must transfer 10 percent of the fees generated to the state's treasurer's office, which deposits the fees into the state's sex offender administration fund.

The rest of the 90 percent of fees collected goes directly into the county sheriff's administration fund.


Monday, January 28, 2008

IN - County considers registration fee for sex offenders

View the article here

01/28/2008

VALPARAISO - Hoping to recoup some of the costs associated with maintaining a registry list, Porter County officials are considering implementing fees for sex and violent offenders.
- This is extortion. Why don't you ask the federal government and tax payers for the money, they are the ones who wanted these laws. This is more ex post facto punishment, and is unconstitutional.

The ordinance, which was preliminarily approved at this week's commissioner's meeting, would establish an annual $50 fee for the offenders, along with a $5 fee every time they change addresses.

Porter County Sheriff Dave Lain said the fees would help offset administrative costs associated with the county's sex offender registry list -- such as visiting houses to confirm addresses.

"Unfortunately, there's a steady stream (of sex offenders)," Lain said. "It's becoming more labor intensive to track these folks."
- So tax the tax payers who wanted these laws.

According to Lain, the county keeps track of from 130 to 150 offenders and performs regular address verifications for each one. Employees also process multiple address change notifications each week, he said.

Because the registry list is part of a state mandate, Indiana law allows counties to implement the fee. State law also dictates who must register for the local lists.

County commissioners will vote on the ordinance with a second reading before finalizing their decision.


Friday, January 4, 2008

IN - Time for offenders to pay up

View the article here

This is nothing but pure extortion!!!

01/04/2008

Vanderburgh County residents convicted of sex crimes and other violent acts are literally having to pay for their crimes.

A new law requires them to pay a fee to appear on the sex offender registry.
- More cruel and unusual BS! You usually pay a fee for a service you want, not something you don't want. Why don't you make all criminals pay a fee for their crime? Just think, if all criminals had to pay a yearly fee, you'd be rich...

They say crime doesn't pay, the criminal does and that's certainly the case here as more than 400 sex and violent offenders in Vanderburgh County.

Offenders are being told they have to pay an annual fee to be on the registry and if they move, they'll have to pay a change of address fee.

It's a law, sex and violent offenders in Vanderburgh must be registered on the county's web site. But now, each offender must also pay a 50 dollar annual fee.

Vanderburgh County Sheriff Eric Williams says, "Ultimately our goal is to get people registered and make sure that information is accurate but at the same time we have an ordinance in place now. We think it's appropriate they pick up the cost of making this happen."
- No, the tax payers who voted on the laws should pay, and where is the grant money you would get for all these BS laws? Why isn't that paying for this? Next people will have to pay a fee every time they stop at a stop sign or red light for the service. Total BS. Many offenders are on the registry for life, on top of having to pay for counseling, probation fees. This is total BS!

The sheriff says Vanderburgh County spends about a $100,000 a year in personnel, administrative and equipment costs to monitor and maintain the sex offender registry.

Requiring offenders to pay an annual fee will help defray those costs.
- Why don't the tax payers and the state pay for this? They are the ones who wanted these draconian laws...

Sheriff Williams says, "When we got the responsibility of maintaining the registry there were no funds to go with it so we kind of had to rob from other areas of the agency to make this work. We believed it was an important mission being given to us to make sure the information was accurate and well maintained so we have dedicated significant resources to it and those resources do cost dollars."
- So how is making people pay a fine going to insure the information is correct? It won't, this is just pure extortion...

The county says it will work with the offender who may have a difficult time paying as long as that person registers.
- Then what is the point? Most wind up homeless because of these very laws.

Williams says there are still many offenders in Vanderburgh County who have yet to register. If offenders don't sign up and pay their dollar fee, they could end up paying in another way.

Sheriff Williams says, "We look at it like this, society has given you a chance to maintain your presence in the community and do whatever it is, work or go to school. We ask you to register. We demand that you register and if you choose not to your option is to go back to prison."
- You are wrong, society and the gestapo won't let offenders live anywhere, work anywhere, the list is endless, so this is pure extortion, plain and simple. PAY A FINE OR GO TO JAIL, kind of like the gangs do, so people are protected by giving them money...

Sheriff Williams says the offenders must also pay a $5 fee every time they change their address.

He says the fees collected should bring in about $20,000 a year, which the sheriff says would be enough to make a part-time clerk and a full-time employee, who could devote much of his or her time to the registry.


Wednesday, December 5, 2007

FL - County To Charge Sex Offenders For Required Registrations

View the article here

More extortion. They people are not funding the laws they want passed, so they exploit sex offenders to make them pay or go back to jail or prison. What other criminal offense is made to PAY TO OBEY THE LAW?

12/05/2007

FORT MYERS -- Sex offenders in Lee County will be charged a fee to register with the state -- which they are required to do by law.

County commissioners approved the fee Tuesday.

The sheriff's office said Lee County will be the first in Florida to require sex offenders and predators to pay a fee each time they register. Some offenders must register multiple times each year.

The fee is intended to cover administrative costs.

Some registered sex offenders living in the county say the fees violate their constitutional rights.

Sheriff Mike Scott said similar fees in 19 other states have withstood constitutional challenges.

Sex offenders and predators must register with their local sheriff's offices under the Jessica Lunsford Act.


Tuesday, December 4, 2007

FL - Delays over, Lee leaders face heaping to-do list

View the article here

12/04/2007

Judah set to take over leadership post from Janes

Today’s Lee County Commission meeting and public hearing agendas are packed due to items delayed in recent weeks.

It’s the first meeting in three weeks in which a full board is expected to attend. Either Commissioner Bob Janes or Ray Judah has been absent.

Also today, Judah is expected to take over as board chairman, a duty Janes has held for the past year.

The 9:30 a.m. regular meeting agenda includes:

• The board will select a consultant to complete a comprehensive study of the Lee County Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource (DRGR) land, the 83,000-acres of environmentally sensitive land in southeast Lee County.

Officials expect the study to cost up to $750,000.

The 5 p.m. public hearing agenda includes:

A final public hearing for an ordinance that would impose a fee for sex offenders and predators to complete forms for the state-mandated sex offender registry.
- Extortion! Pay a fee or go back to prison. Why do other criminals not have to pay fees for life?

Proponents have said it will offset the administrative costs for maintaining the sex offender registry. Opponents said it amounts to an unfair tax specific to sex offenders.

• A final public hearing for a fertilizer ordinance that would regulate professional landscapers and not apply to homeowners.

Among the regulations would be that no fertilizer be applied within 10 feet from the edge of any water body, seawall or in any designated wetland.

• A proposed extension of a rezoning moratorium in Lehigh Acres. The moratorium, first adopted in April 2006, blocks attempts to rezone non-residential property for residential uses.

It was imposed to give the county time to adopt a community plan for the future development of the east Lee County community.

• Two other moratoriums. The first is for the submitting and processing of zoning applications affecting the 83,000-acre DRGR. The other would prevent changes to the growth plan affecting the 83,000 acres DRGR.

The moratorium would buy time until the DRGR comprehensive study is complete. It would carry into September.

Representatives from mining companies have said the moratorium is unfair to the industry, which is being portrayed as environmentally unfriendly.

Residents in the area said delaying plans for more mining is important as studies are completed.


Wednesday, October 31, 2007

IN - Sheriff seeks added fees for sex offender list

View the article here

10/29/2007

An ordinance to make convicted sex offenders a little more “responsible for their actions” was suggested to commissioners on Monday.

Wabash County Sheriff Leroy Striker asked the Wabash County Commissioners to consider adding a $5 fee each time a convicted sex offender moves to a new address.

Striker said there is a one-time fee of $50 to the offender, but that the amount was barely enough to pay the expense of being added into the sex offender registry. He said each time the offender moves to a new address, his or her profile in the registry must also be updated so the public can be aware of the offender's current residence.

“Among a population of about 34,000 in Wabash County, there are 85 registered sex offenders,” Striker told commissioners. “That's a lot.”

Some are under a 10-year registry mandate and others have a lifetime notification process.

By visiting the Wabash County Sheriff's Department Web site, www.wcsd.us, the public can access the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender Registry, Striker said.

“You can see where they live (and work). The new ordinance would help make the perpetrator responsible for their actions without being a burden to law-abiding citizens,” he added.

He said the program was in place in Morgan County, where the local ordinance is helping the county with the costs. Commissioner attorney Steve Downs will take a look into creating the new ordinance.

In other county business, Chief Probation Officer Dallas Duggan requested additional help for his department.

Duggan explained that with Wabash County Drug Court still growing, so has additional work for the probation department.

“We now have more than one person can handle,” he told commissioners. “I can't continue paying for 60 hours a week.”

Duggan requested some part-time help for primarily field work.

Commissioners agreed and cleared the request on to Wabash County Council.