MN - What to do with 700-plus sex offenders? Pressure builds for answer

Original Article

05/16/2013

By Susan Hegarty

Under court order to treat and release clients held in treatment program, DHS proposes biennial reviews and scattered-site placements.

Even sex offenders have constitutional rights.

Finished with their prison sentences, about 680 sex offenders have been civilly committed by the courts and placed in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program for an indeterminate period of time. A judge may have determined them to have a sexual psychopathic personality, be a sexually dangerous person or both.

Yet, under pressure from a federal court, Minnesota is faced with the challenge of releasing more people who were court-ordered to treatment at the MSOP facilities in Moose Lake or St. Peter. To date, only one individual has been granted a provisional release. Holding the rest of them indefinitely is unconstitutional, according to the court.

“The people who are in this program nobody wants for their neighbor. But they have constitutional rights. That means we have to set up systems that are constitutional and actually work,” said Rep. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka).

The Sex Offender Civil Commitment Advisory Task Force studied the issue and the Department of Human Services began looking at modifying the way clients move through treatment, including alternatives to moving to the Moose Lake facility. Proposed changes are contained in SF1014 (PDF) sponsored by Sen. Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato), which the Senate passed 44-21 on Tuesday. It now awaits action in the House, where Rep. Tina Liebling (DFL-Rochester) is the sponsor.

The House Judiciary Finance and Policy Committee approved the companion bill, HF1139 (PDF), 5-3 on May 10 and referred it to the House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee.

Two options

The bill would authorize judges to commit offenders to one of two options: the MSOP facility or placement in a “Strict and Intensive Supervision and Treatment” program, or SIST. Each client’s placement and treatment progress, or lack of progress, would be reviewed every two years.

“We’re talking about managing a population that’s already there and continuing to grow,” Liebling said. An estimated 50 newly released sex offenders could be court-ordered into the treatment program each year, according to the Department of Human Services.

“The way to make sure that the treatment is effective is to have this independent group of examiners who review each patient’s progress at least every two years,” Liebling said.

Recognizing that newly released sex offenders may be diverted from entering MSOP, DHS has asked public and private treatment programs to submit information about whether they could provide ongoing treatment following release. The department received more than 20 responses, which could include day treatment, foster home settings, apartments and monitoring individuals by GPS with ankle bracelets. Some programs have prior experience treating sex offenders while other responders currently offer in-patient treatment services for other problems, such as alcohol and drug addictions. If legislators warm to the idea of scattered site treatment centers, the next step would be to request program proposals from the respondents.

“Obviously there are lots of places where it wouldn’t be appropriate to put this kind of facility, but if we say there is no place, then we’re really in a pickle,” Liebling said.

But some committee members were reluctant to vote on the bill, saying it wasn’t “ready for prime time.”

“I don’t want to be in a position of learning what this does after I vote on it,” said Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa).

Not willing to wait

But Abeler wasn’t willing to wait until the 2014 legislative session to act.

“I don’t know how we as legislators, sworn to uphold the constitution, do nothing with the threat of (federal) action or otherwise. We have a job to do. Is this a scary bunch of people to deal with? Could one of these people re-offend? Absolutely. There are ways to set aside who is high risk and who is low risk. We’re not even doing that,” he said.

Rep. Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) predicted that cities and counties will pass ordinances prohibiting the location of the treatment centers in their communities. “Basically we’re going to have to shove this down their throat.”

His approach would be further upstream in the court system. He suggested creating a new class of criminal called a “predatory sex offender” which calls for a 60-year prison sentence.

“That stops the flow to the sex offender program. With incarceration, you don’t run into the constitutional problem because you don’t have to treat them when they’re incarcerated,” Cornish said.

There is also the political consequence to consider. No member wants to be labeled soft on crime. “Is there political peril in this? Absolutely,” said Abeler.

For others, the cost of operating MSOP is the driving force behind their support. It costs the state about $120,000 a year for each person in treatment. Keeping them in prison is about one-third of the cost.

“The trend that we’re on is unsustainable,” said Rep. Michael Paymar (DFL-St. Paul). He called the bill a “good first step. I think we have to give this a chance.”

Rep. Debra Hillstrom (DFL-Brooklyn Center), chair of the committee, puts her faith in the courts knowing when to commit someone into the program and when to discharge them back into society.

“It is court in and court out. And all of the evaluations about what level of care, security and treatment is going to be determined through the courts, and I have a high amount of regard for the court and their ability to assess,” Hillstrom said.

---

OH - Appeals Court Reverses Sex Offender’s Conviction, Can’t Be Reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act

Original Article

04/19/2013

By Jenna Gant

The Eighth District Court of Appeals ruled April 18 that a sex offender from California who moved to Ohio cannot be reclassified as a Tier III offender under the Adam Walsh Act.

[name withheld] was required to register his address annually for a period of ten years when he first moved to Ohio under the former Megan’s Law. In July 2007, the attorney general reclassified [name withheld] under the Adam Walsh Act, which required him to register his address every 90 days for life.

[name withheld] failed to register in July 2010 and was indicted on a single count of failing to register his address. [name withheld] tried to get the charge dismissed, arguing that his 2007 reclassification was unconstitutional under the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court case State v. Bodyke (PDF), which held that the attorney general’s reclassification of an offender from Megan’s Law to the Adam Walsh Act “violated the separation of powers doctrine because it would allow the executive branch to review a decision made by the judicial branch.”

The state argued that [name withheld]'s case is different than Bodyke because [name withheld]'s classification was made in California and not in Ohio.

Administrative Judge Melody J. Stewart wrote in the appeals court’s unanimous decision (PDF) that the Eighth District Court of Appeals has “repeatedly rejected the argument that there is a distinction between in-state and out-of-state offenders.”

Judge Stewart found that [name withheld]'s case is also not affected by the December 2012 Ohio Supreme Court decision State v. Brunning (PDF), in which the court held that “despite an offender who was originally classified under Megan’s Law being wrongly reclassified under the Adam Walsh Act, the state could still maintain a prosecution for a violation of the reporting requirements as long as the alleged violation also constituted a violation of Megan’s Law.”

Judge Stewart noted that Brunning was charged with failing to comply with a change of address requirement that was the same under both Megan’s Law and the Adam Walsh Act, while [name withheld] is required to register annually for 10 years under Megan’s Law, compared to every 90 days for life under the Adam Walsh Act.

Judges Mary J. Boyle and Tim McCormack concurred in the April 18 opinion that reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

---

MD - High court ruling could affect sex offender registry - ourt says offenders from before registry began shouldn't be on list

Original Article

03/05/2013

BALTIMORE - The Maryland Court of Appeals on Monday decided that sex offenders whose crimes took place before the registry was created in 1995 should not have to register, and the decision could have widespread implications for hundreds of others on the list.

The case of Sarah Foxwell, an 11-year-old girl found raped and slain on the Eastern Shore in December 2010 sparked outrage and increased efforts to tighten restrictions on Maryland sex offenders.

"It's enabled all of us statewide to have a conversation about the fact that this really is a problem. It really does happen and it can happen anywhere, whether it's on the Eastern Shore or it's right here in Baltimore City," said Adam Rosenberg, the executive director of the Baltimore Child Abuse Center.

Much of the conversation has focused on the sex offender registry, which was placed front and center in the Maryland Court of Appeals on Monday.

In the case presented to the court, a Washington County teacher who went by the name John Doe was convicted in 2006 of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old student in 1983. Doe argued that he should not have to register as a sex offender because the registry didn't exist until 12 years after the crime.

"He's saying when I did what I did, there was not a sex offender registry in place, therefore you can't put me on the sex offender registry for doing what I did," explained Baltimore criminal defense attorney Christopher Wheatcroft, of the firm Alperstein & Diener, P.A.

The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling that sets new precedent in the state and has the potential to remove hundreds of sex offenders from the registry.

Wheatcroft called the decision fair but acknowledged that the future will at least partly depend on how the Legislature and the Department of Public Safety react to the ruling.

"Long-term, I don't know how many people will be off the registry, and I don't know what process they're going to have to follow to make that happen if it remains an opportunity for them," Wheatcroft said.

Rosenberg said regardless of what happens, the registry is only one part of the solution.

"It's great to be able to know who is in your neighborhood that has been convicted of being a sex offender, but that doesn't solve the entire problem," he said. "There are many more people who could be committing a sex offense that we don't know of, and that is preventable."
- Preventable how exactly?  And what about knowing all the other ex-felons who live in our neighborhood, like murderers, gang members, drug dealers / users, DUI offenders, thieves, etc?

Details written in the judgment show that the court was somewhat divided in determining its ruling. Legal experts said the issue still has a long road and will likely make its way to the Supreme Court.

Video Link

---

MD - Maryland Court of Appeals: Retroactive Sex Offender Law is Unconstitutional

Video Description:
On March 4, 2013 the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that retroactively requiring a person to register as a sex offender in accordance with laws created in 2009 and 2010 violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws contained in Article 17 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The video shows the oral argument that took place prior to this decision - the oral argument was held 09-07-12.

See Also:

• Case brief and notes
• New Case Significantly Changes Maryland Sex Offender Registration
• Sex offender doesn't have to register
• State weighing effect of court ruling on sex-offender registry

Video Link

---

MD - Sex offender doesn't have to register - Judges rule it violates Constitution, ex post facto laws and is additional punishment!

Original Article

03/04/2013

By JESSICA GRESKO

A ruling Monday from Maryland's highest court calls into question a state law that requires some people to register as sex offenders for crimes committed decades ago.

The ruling means at least one man will have his name removed from the sex offender database, but other offenders may also be able to challenge their inclusion.

Maryland first created a sex offender registry in 1995, and more than 8,300 people are now in the database. Lawmakers strengthened sex offender laws in 2009 and 2010, and one of the changes made required registration for some people who committed crimes before the database's creation.

On Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a man who as a junior high school teacher in the early 1980s had inappropriate contact with a 13-year-old student. The man pleaded guilty to abuse in 2006 after a former student came forward, and he went to prison for about two years.

As a result of provisions that went into effect in 2009 and 2010, the man was required to register as a sex offender. That's because while he committed his crime before the registry existed, he pleaded guilty after it was in place. He was also required to re-register every three months for the rest of his life.

A majority of the seven judges sitting on the court ruled that the man should not be required to register, but they disagreed as to why.

Three judges said in a 41-page ruling that requiring the man to register violates the Maryland Constitution. The Constitution prohibits "ex post facto" laws, which retroactively dole out punishments that weren't in place at the time an act was committed.

Two more judges agreed the man should not have to register but rested the decision both on the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions. One more judge said the man shouldn't be required to register because it wasn't part of his plea agreement. A final judge would have upheld a lower court ruling requiring the man to register.

One of the man's attorneys, Pat Cresta-Savage, said the ruling was "definitely a victory" for her client, but how it will affect others "remains to be seen." She said it seems individuals will have to challenge their inclusion on a case-by-case basis.

David Paulson, a spokesman for the Maryland Attorney General, said the office is reviewing the ruling. The office could decide not to challenge the ruling, to ask the court to reconsider or to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

See Also:

• Md. high court ruling could affect sex offender registry

Video Link

---

IN - Senators seek new social networking ban

Original Article

01/28/2013

By TOM LoBIANCO

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Two Republican lawmakers are looking for a new way to keep registered sex offenders off social media one week after a federal appeals court found a previous ban unconstitutional.

The proposal would ban Class A felony child molesters and sex offenders convicted of child solicitation from sites such as Facebook.

Republican Sens. Jim Merritt and John Waterman introduced a measure Monday that they say is narrow enough to comply with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The court found Indiana's 2008 ban violated the First Amendment because it was too broad.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana fought the 2008 measure for a man who served three years for child molestation and other sex offenders no longer on probation.

---

NY - Sex Offenders and Social Media in New York State

Our Comments:
The law is lumping all ex-sex offenders into one group, the worst of the worse, and that is why it's unconstitutional. Probation / parole can already set guidelines on who can do what, so this is just another un-needed law made by some politician who is exploiting fear, children and ex-sex offenders to help their own careers.

It is time for the people who took oaths to defend the Constitution, to do so!!!!!

And we are also sick and tired of the biased media, who are suppose to report all the facts, and not their own personal hate and biasness, using the term sex offender, child molester, pedophile and predator as if they are all the same. THEY ARE NOT! So stop misusing the terms. It's reporting like this why the hysteria is still going strong, but maybe that is your goal in the first place?

Video Description:
Criminal Defense Attorney Thomas Carr of Albany, NY discusses New York State laws pertaining to Sex Offenders and Social Media.

A federal judge in Chicago said it is unconstitutional for states to ban all sex offenders from social media sites. The ruling came after an Indiana sex offender who was no longer on probation challenged a state law.

It was a very, very broad ban, if you were a sex offender you couldnt register and you couldn't be on Facebook, said Thomas Carr, a partner with Tully Rinkey PLLC.

In 2008, New York enacted the Electronic Security and Targeting of Online Predators Act (e-STOP). Authorities have since used provisions to take thousands of sex offenders offline. E-STOP requires offenders to register their email addresses, screen names and social media accounts with the state. The information is then provided to social media sites that request the data. New York only prohibits some sex offenders from using the websites as part of probation requirements.

More than two dozen social media websites, including Facebook, ban sex offenders as part of their Terms of Service. The federal ruling does not apply to the sites because they are private companies.

Some sites do not have an outright ban on sex offenders and do not cross-check the information on the state database with their usernames, which is why experts continually suggest parents take steps at home to monitor computer, gaming and smartphone use.

Were always concerned about safety for kids and this is concerning. it really highlights and makes it more important for a parent to be involved with the kid's online presence, said Andy Gliplin, Director of Program Services at CAPTAIN Youth and Family Services. Really take advantage of the parental controls that are out there with a lot of the sites, gaming consoles, and different access points to the internet.

---

IN - Community speaks out about social network ruling

Original Article

01/24/2013

By Holly Campbell

LAFAYETTE (WLFI) - An Indiana law banning registered sex offenders from using social media sites like Facebook and Twitter was found unconstitutional by a federal judge.

"I think a lot of that falls into the parents responsibilities, but then what do you do for those children that don't have parents involved. I think it is wise for the community to try and protect them," Rochelle Jones of Lafayette said.

Last June U.S.. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt upheld the law saying the state has a strong interest in doing just that, protecting children. Pratt said social networking provides sexual predators the ability to prey on children.
- It also provides a way for scammers to target victims and ruin their lives as well, or gang members to recruit new children into their gangs, or thieves to find when you are or aren't home, but we don't see you passing laws to prevent that.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation. They appealed the June ruling and agree with the most recent ruling that the law was too broad.

"Indiana has already made it a crime to engage in, as I said, not only solicitation just sort of succeeding in doing something horrible but even inappropriate communication with children that's already illegal, so what you're asking is that we are going to make any contact with social media illegal and that's just too broad," Indiana ACLU Legal Director Ken Faulk said.

Just last week a Crawfordsville man was arrested for seven felony counts of sexual misconduct with a minor after using social media to make contact with the minor. According to court documents, 53-year-old [name withheld] met a 15-year-old boy on Facebook. He committed sexual acts at least 6 times with the boy over a span of 18 months. [name withheld] was not a registered sex offender.
- So punish the individual not an entire group!

---

IN - Facebook Sex Offenders Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

Original Article

01/23/2013

By CHARLES WILSON

INDIANAPOLIS - An Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from using Facebook and other social networking sites that can be accessed by children is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 7th U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Chicago overturned a federal judge's decision upholding the law, saying the state was justified in trying to protect children but that the "blanket ban" went too far by restricting free speech.

The 2008 law "broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors," the judges wrote.

"The goal of deterrence does not license the state to restrict far more speech than necessary to target the prospective harm," they said in a 20-page decision (PDF).

The judges noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has also struck down laws that restricted the constitutional right to freedom of expression, such as one that sought to ban leafleting on the premise that it would prevent the dropping of litter.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt ruled in June that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and found that social networking had created a "virtual playground for sexual predators to lurk." She noted that everything else on the Internet remained open to those who have been convicted of sex offenses.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the class-action suit on behalf of a man who served three years for child exploitation and other sex offenders who are restricted by the ban even though they are no longer on probation.

Courts have long allowed states to place restrictions on convicted sex offenders who have completed their sentences, controlling where many live and work and requiring them to register with police. But the ACLU contended that even though the Indiana law is only intended to protect children from online sexual predators, social media websites are virtually indispensable. The group said the ban prevents sex offenders from using the websites for legitimate political, business and religious purposes.

The ACLU applauded the decision.

"Indiana already has a law on the books that prohibits inappropriate sexual contacts with children," including penalties for online activities, ACLU legal director Ken Falk said. "This law sought to criminalize completely innocent conduct that has nothing to do with children."

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office would review the ruling before deciding on the next step.

Federal judges have barred similar laws in Nebraska and Louisiana. Louisiana legislators passed a new, narrower law last year that requires sex offenders to identify themselves on Facebook and similar sites. A federal judge struck down part of Nebraska's law last October.

---

CA - H.B. to consider changes to sex offender rule

Original Article

01/22/2013

By JAIMEE LYNN FLETCHER

HUNTINGTON BEACH – City Council members will discuss changing an ordinance to allow some exceptions to a ban on sex offenders in city parks.

The council will meet on Tuesday to discuss allowing Police Chief Kenneth Small to make exemptions to the rule based on his discretion, according to city reports.
- Come on, this is just sugar-coating to make it sound less punitive.  We are willing to bet if this passes, this officer will still not allow anyone into the parks.

The changes come on the heels of a lawsuit filed in October, naming Huntington Beach and other Orange County cities, which says that the ordinances that ban sex offenders from parks and other public areas are unconstitutional.

Lake Forest, Costa Mesa and Seal Beach were named in the suit along with Huntington Beach. In December, Lake Forest repealed its ordinance.

As proposed, the new rule says Small can write letters of exemption that would allow certain sex offenders into parks.

The council may also consider an exemption for sex offenders who are parents or guardians or those who work in banned areas but held their jobs before the city's law was passed.

When Huntington Beach officials first approved the ordinance they received some resistance from council members who said the rule was too broad and would unfairly punish those who were not a danger to the community.

Council members who opposed the ordinance, including Mayor Connie Boardman and Councilman Joe Shaw, were careful not to downplay the seriousness of sexual offenses, but both Boardman and Shaw said there are a wide variety of crimes that can brand someone as a sex offender.

Among the examples discussed: A 19-year-old man with a 16-year-old girlfriend could be slapped with the label, as could someone who urinated in public.

"Parents who had offenses decades ago, who are now raising children, (could be) prohibited from going to the park," Boardman said at a previous meeting. "I'm concerned about the constitutionality of this as well."

The council majority in November 2011 approved the ordinance, with most members saying there should not be exceptions.

"I don't want to be sitting up here and say that I had the ability and didn't use it and some child was abused," said Councilman Joe Carchio when the ordinance was first approved. "If it were up to me and I could get rid of them all, I would."
- So you'd be a dictator like Hitler as he exterminated many Jews?

The council meets at 6 p.m. on Tuesday at City Hall, 2000 Main St.

---

PA - Phillipsburg abolishes pedophile-free zone

Original Article

We are so sick and tired of people inserting "pedophile" into their news articles. A majority of ex-sex offenders are not pedophiles, by definition or diagnosis by an expert.

01/15/2013

By Douglas B. Brill

Phillipsburg Town Council tonight eliminated a law that restricted where sex offenders could live.

Phillipsburg enacted the pedophile-free zone amid a flurry of municipalities approving similar laws that often made almost entire communities inaccessible to sex offenders.

But Phillipsburg wasn’t enforcing the law because state courts found it unconstitutional, Mayor Harry Wyant Jr. said after the council voted unanimously to abolish it.

“Everyone felt we should have the control to do that, but we don’t,” Wyant said tonight.

Phillipsburg’s law barred convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or 2,500 feet of parks, playgrounds and recreation centers.

But about a week after it passed in 2005, a similar law was challenged in Cape May County. A former teacher who spent a year in prison for having sex with a 16-year-old female student wanted to move with his wife and kids to Lower Township and claimed a pedophile-free zone put 90 percent of the township off-limits to him.

A state judge ultimately tossed out Lower Township’s ban.

At least 10 communities in Warren and Hunterdon counties were among at least 80 in New Jersey with pedophile-free zones on the books as of 2007. But many of them said after the Cape May County ruling that the zones wouldn’t be enforced.

More recently, the state legislature took up a bill that would make smaller pedophile-free zones.

At least 12 Pennsylvania communities including Upper Mount Bethel Township adopted pedophile-free zones, but police rarely report that they’re being enforced.

Easton Councilman Ken Brown abandoned a 2008 proposal that would have made most of the city off limits to sex offenders. He said at the time that he wanted to protect children but realized the law couldn’t punish someone legitimately trying to re-enter society.

---

PA - Appealing Pennsylvania’s New Megan’s Law

Original Article

This is an excellent article. Click the link above to read the entire thing, and see the video.

12/18/2012

On December 20, 2012, Pennsylvania will begin enforcing its new changes to Megan's Law. By now, many people have realized that they or their friends will be negatively impacted by these laws. For most, it's probably hard to grasp how such laws could be legal. Undoubtedly, many appeals will be filed to challenge these laws. In some states such as Ohio, many of the retroactive provisions have been found to be unconstitutional upon being appealed, and have been reversed. In other states, the high courts have upheld the new laws. The purpose of this article is to educate you all about why these new laws may or may not ultimately be determined to be illegal.

The United States Constitution, as well as the Pennsylvania Constitution, contain clauses that prevent legal consequences from being changed retroactively. Section 17 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads:

"No ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, or making irrevocable any grant of special privileges or immunities, shall be passed."

For example, one cannot be arrested today based upon a new law if the actions of that individual were legal during the time the actions were taken. Additionally, if an individual were sentenced to the maximum term of 10 years of imprisonment for a crime in 1999, and in 2002 the maximum sentence for that crime changed to 20 years, the sentence of that individual cannot be changed retroactively to conform to the new law.

However, in order for a retroactive law to violate the ex post facto clause, the legal consequence that is changed retroactively must be "punitive" (i.e., considered to be punishment), as opposed to civil, remedial, or a collateral consequence. Some examples of collateral consequences include loss of the right to vote, enlist in the armed services, or own a firearm. Although it may be hard to imagine, some high courts have ruled that sex offender registration requirements are not punitive, but are instead collateral consequences.

However, in State v. Williams,129 Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374 (PDF), the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the requirements of Ohio's new sex offender laws based upon the Adam Walsh Act had transformed the law from remedial to punitive. Their decision was not based upon a single requirement, but instead was based upon the totality of the requirements. The Court cited the various new requirements, and also stated two other factors that influenced their decision: 1) the procedures for registration and classification of sex offenders were placed within Ohio's criminal code, and 2) failure to comply with certain registration requirements subjected an offender to criminal prosecution.

Read the entire article here

---

CA - Sex Offenders Win Right To Online Anonymity

Original Article

We do not force ex-identity thieves or ex-hackers to post their personal information online, nor any other criminal, so why should we start with today's modern day scapegoat? If you do it for one group, then everybody, criminal or not, should be forced to not be anonymous online!

01/15/2013

A federal judge has blocked a California bill that would take away sex offenders’ ability to anonymously use email, social media, instant messaging and various other web sites and services. The bill, Proposition 35, was deemed by Judge Thelton Henderson, to be unconstitutional.

Here’s how the State of California summarizes the bill in question:

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

In November, the bill passed with 81% of the vote. The bill, however, was temporarily blocked as the ACLU (along with a couple of sex offenders) got involved and filed suit.

The ACLU said of the bill, “Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement – even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants’ First Amendment right to free speech.”

Similarly, Judge Henderson, who blocked the bill on Friday, said (as quoted by Wired): “The challenged provisions have some nexus with the government’s legitimate purpose of combating online sex offenses and human trafficking, but the government may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.”

Bloomberg quotes Henderson as saying, “The court does not lightly take the step of enjoining a state statute, even on a preliminary basis. However, just as the court is mindful that a strong majority of California voters approved Proposition 35 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from online sex offenses and human trafficking, it is equally mindful that anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and that plaintiffs enjoy no lesser right to anonymous speech simply because they are unpopular.”

According to Wired, the next phase of the legal process could be a trial on the lawsuit’s merits. Bloomberg quotes a spokesman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, as saying, “Our office is reviewing the decision.”

Mike Masnick at TechDirt writes of Proposition 35, “There are serious issues with the bill if you don’t know the details. First, many ‘sex offenders’ aren't what you might think of as ‘sex offenders’ — people who are arrested for things like urinating in public, or for consensual sex between minors. Beyond that, this particular bill went really, really far, requiring all such “offenders” to hand over all details of every online service they used — no matter what the purpose.”

Sex offenders’ online rights have always been a hot button issue, and have received a great deal of attention over the past year, particularly. Last year, we wrote about a wave of challenges (especially from the ACLU) to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media.

One such law was in Indiana, where a judge ruled that a state ban on convicted sex offenders accessing social media sites at all, is lawful. A similar case took place in Nebraska, where a law banning registered sex offenders from holding social media accounts was thrown out. In Louisiana, a sex offender Facebook ban was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” the judge said of that case.

Still, one Louisiana lawmaker passed a law requiring all registered sex offenders to list their status and crimes on any social network in which they participate.

Clearly this issue is seeing various state responses across the nation.

---

DC - Supreme Court to review sex offender registration law

Original Article

01/11/2013

The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether the government can require a former federal sex offender to register a change of address even after he had served his sentence and been unconditionally freed from custody.

In a brief order, the court agreed to hear the government's appeal of a July 2012 decision overturning the conviction of Air Force veteran [name withheld] for violating the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 2006.

SORNA provides what the U.S. Department of Justice calls a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification, and was designed to close potential gaps and loopholes.

While in the military, [name withheld] at age 21 had consensual sex with a 15-year-old. He was sentenced in 1999 to three months in prison, which he served, and was no longer under federal control by the time SORNA was enacted.

In August 2007, he registered with authorities in El Paso, Texas, as a sex offender but never updated his registration after moving later that month to San Antonio. [name withheld] was later apprehended, and sentenced to one year in prison after a bench trial.

But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the conviction and found the registration requirement unconstitutional.

Congress, it said, was not entitled to assert "unending criminal authority" over [name withheld] because of his earlier criminal sexual activity.

The Justice Department appealed, saying Congress acted within its power in subjecting [name withheld] to the SORNA registration requirement. It also said voiding of an "important" act of Congress warranted the court's review.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

The case is U.S. v. [name withheld], U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-418 (PDF).

---

IN - Supreme Court removes Hammond man from sex offender list

Original Article

All states have the issue of "ex post facto" laws in their constitutions, so why aren't all states finding the same?

01/10/2013

By Dan Carden

INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a Hammond man removed from the state's sex offender registry after determining the law requiring him to register for life imposes an unconstitutional retroactive punishment (PDF).

[name withheld], 52, pleaded guilty to child solicitation in 1997 after seeking a sexual encounter with a 9-year-old Lake County girl, according to court records.

He served 18 months in prison, 18 months on probation and was required by a 1996 law to register as a sex offender for 10 years.

In 2006, the Republican-controlled General Assembly changed the sex offender registration law to require adult sex offenders who victimized children younger than 12 to register for life.

[name withheld] argued in his appeal to the state's high court that extending his registration period from 10 years to life was an additional retroactive punishment and prohibited by the "ex post facto" clause of the Indiana Constitution. Ex post facto is Latin for "after the fact."

In a 5-0 decision, the state Supreme Court agreed.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, weighed the punitive effects of lifetime registration and determined that as applied to [name withheld]'s low-level felony conviction it is additional punishment and therefore unconstitutional.

Republican Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who sought to keep [name withheld] on the sex offender rolls, is reviewing the court's decision, said spokesman Bryan Corbin.

Corbin said Zoeller expects to meet with state legislators to help draft an update to Indiana's sex offender registration law in the wake of several similar recent court rulings.

---

CA - DA Ready to Defend Banning Sex Offenders From Parks

Tony Rackauckas

Original Article

12/12/2012

By ADAM ELMAHREK

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas is preparing to fight what could be the beginning of significant backlash against his signature issue over the past year — banning sex offenders from local parks.

After successfully pushing for a ban at county parks, Rackauckas spent many hours and nights this year attending city council meetings across the county lobbying for ordinances that would make it illegal for registered sex offenders to enter city parks.

The intensive lobbying effort paid off, with 15 cities voting to adopt such bans.
- And hopefully these cities will now repeal the laws, which do nothing to prevent crime or protect anybody?

But then a registered sex offender sued, and a panel of Orange County Superior Court judges ruled last month that the county’s ban was illegal because it preempted state law and created a confusing patchwork of local restrictions.

That decision could end up before the state's 4th District Court of Appeal, which will decide by Dec. 15 whether to take on the issue.

If the appellate court affirms the Superior Court’s decision, it could spell doom for Rackauckas’ high-profile campaign.
- Good, and hopefully they will find the laws unconstitutional?

It appears that reversals and criticism have already begun.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has decided to stop enforcing the ordinance in county territories and some cities because of advice from the county counsel’s office in the wake of the court ruling.

And following heated exchange between Lake Forest Mayor Kathryn McCullough (Video) and Rackauckas, Lake Forest City Council members last Tuesday night voted to repeal their ordinance.

Officials in other cities across the county are considering doing the same.

Despite those setbacks, Rackauckas remains undeterred.

At last week's annual Orange County Inns of Court annual holiday event, Rackaucakas said he sharply disagrees with the county counsel’s position and the ruling of the lower court.

Rackauckas said his office is confident in their legal position that the sex offender bans are constitutional and that county officials need not stop enforcing the ban unless the appellate court decides to take on the issue and offers an adverse ruling.

DA officials have taken the stance that regardless of how many sex crimes are actually prevented, defending children from sexual predators is worth fighting for and that the cities were warned of possible court battles if they adopted the ordinances.

“We have always said that this is a law that will never show up in the statistics. You will never know what child will not get raped or not get molested because this law existed,” said Susan Kang Schroeder, Rackauckas' chief of staff.

Yet to critics the sex offender park ban is an unnecessary law, seemingly intended to score easy political points and now placing taxpayers at risk for costly lawsuits.

Lake Forest officials sharply criticized the law as ineffective before City Council members voted to repeal it.

A staff report states that since such bans have taken effect, “only two have resulted in prosecution, and the court recently overturned the sole conviction on appeal.”

Read the rest of the story here

Video Link

---

OH - Ohio court's sex offender ruling clarifies some laws

Original Article

So when is the sex offender moral panic and witch hunt going to stop? Every single year politicians are passing more and more laws to further punish, demonize, exile and ostracize ex-sex offenders, been doing it for many years now, and wasting tons and tons of tax payer money, and we wonder why we are about to jump off the cliff?

12/10/2012

By Jona Ison

CHILLICOTHE — Recent Supreme Court decisions likely will result in some changes to past classifications and sentences for sex offenders.

The decisions were released along with several other Ohio Supreme Court decisions as part of a year-end transition process. The decisions clarify some issues regarding the changeover from Megan’s Law to the Adam Walsh Act regarding sentencing and classifications of sex offenders.

In one case, the court’s decision clarified that any sex offense committed between the July 2007 repeal of Megan’s Law and the January 2008 effective date of the Adam Walsh Act shall be classified under Megan’s Law. An earlier ruling by the court had determined the law under which offenders are classified is determined by when the act was committed, not when the conviction occurs.

In a different case, the court ruled that when offenders are classified under Megan’s Law and violate address notification rules under that law, the offender must be sentenced under the penalty provisions of Megan’s Law, not the Adam Walsh Act.

However, another case ruling determined any indictments charging a violation of notification requirements of the Adam Walsh Act of offenders classified under Megan’s Law continue to be valid. The court reasoned the indictments were valid because the two laws have identical address change notification requirements.

Ross County Prosecutor Matt Schmidt said the rulings “seem consistent” with past rulings. As the state moved from Megan’s Law to Adam Walsh, there was a flurry of changes back and forth.

“It’s created a massive headache,” Schmidt said.

At first, all offenders were re-classified under the Adam Walsh Act (which carries a three-tier classification), but then a court ruling determined that was unconstitutional. As a result, those offenders had to be reverted back to classification under Megan’s Law.

The Megan’s Law classification system requires a sexual classification hearing and the judge determines the classification of the offender, such as sexual predator.

The new rulings, however are unlikely to create such a large issue.

Pike County Prosecutor Rob Junk (Facebook) anticipates his office will see some motions filed on past cases, but not an overwhelming amount.

“I’ll imagine we’ll see a few,” Junk said.

Cases where any of the issues are present will not automatically be altered. Defendants will need to file a motion for a change.

“It’s not our jobs to hunt them down and inform them of the changes in the law,” Junk said.

Sex offenders seeking more information about the rulings and how to file something in their case can contact their individual attorneys or the Office of the Ohio Public Defender at 800-686-1573 or visit www.opd.ohio.gov.

---

CA - Court determines Orange County sex offender ordinance unlawful

Original Article

11/28/2012

The ordinance passed by Orange County which prohibits all registrants from entering public parks, beaches, harbors and other recreational areas is unlawful, according to a panel of three Superior Court judges. The unanimous decision was issued on November 15.

According to this decision (PDF), the county ordinance violates the constitution of the State of California because it preempts existing state law which prohibits registrants from entering public parks but only if the registrant is on parole and offended against a child who is less than 14 years old. That law is California Penal Code Section 3053.8 (scroll down).

“This is a major victory for registrants, not only in Orange County, but throughout the state of California,” stated Janice Bellucci (Video, Video), California RSOL state organizer. “Registrants can now recreate in the parks, beaches, and harbors of Orange County without fear of being arrested or fined.”

This decision is the result of the dedication and hard work of attorneys within the Orange County Public Defender’s Office who have represented registrant [name withheld], who was arrested in an Orange County Park on May 5, 2011. According to attorney Scott Van Camp, [name withheld] was attending a mandatory company celebration of Cinco de Mayo at the time of his arrest.

The court’s decision has been referred to the next appellate level for possible review. That court could reject further consideration of this decision or accept the case for additional review. A decision by that court regarding further review of the November 15 decision is expected in December.

The November 15 decision is limited to the Orange County ordinance and does not apply to ordinances passed by cities within that county or any other county. However, additional challenges have been made to similar ordinances adopted by Orange County cities, including but not limited to Tustin, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach.

See Also:

• O.C. sex offender law is ruled illegal
• Related items from Google

---

OH - News outfit (WEWS-TV) claims unconstitutional laws trampling on ex-criminals rights are loopholes?

An unconstitutional (ex post facto) law that eradicates people's human and civil rights is NOT a "loophole!" If you want to trample on criminals rights, due to your life of fear, then you should do it across the board and stop discriminating. You are throwing all ex-offenders into the "child molester, pedophile, predator" basket, and many are not either, but hey, the media needs to report on something, right?

Video Link

---

PA - (The Blair Witch Project) Plea deals could lead to Walsh Act challenge

Original Article

11/15/2012

By Phil Ray

38 local residents set to be added to sex offender list

HOLLIDAYSBURG - There could be a court challenge to the implementation of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act if local people who accepted plea agreements without registration requirements are now mandated to register with police as sexual offenders, an Altoona defense attorney said Wednesday.
- It should be challenged, and the judges who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and people's rights need to start doing so.  This is clearly an ex post facto law, which is unconstitutional.

Thirty-eight local residents are scheduled to be added to Blair County's list of 85 sexual offenders when the new federal registration system becomes effective in Pennsylvania, Blair County probation officials said.

Tom Shea, director of the Blair County Adult Parole and Probation Office, said the Adam Walsh provisions will go into effect on Dec. 20.

Shea has been working with the Blair County district attorney's staff, the public defender's staff, the county prison and state police in preparing for the implementation of the new act.

Compliance is mandatory if Pennsylvania is to continue to receive federal money for certain programs.

Attorney Thomas M. Dickey said that he has been approached by at least three previous clients who are concerned they may be among those who will now be required to register.

Dickey said he is hoping that he will not have to launch a court challenge to the new law.

He is hoping that some agreement can be reached with prosecutors that would permit those individuals to withdraw their initial guilty pleas and enter pleas to charges not requiring registration.

The original pleas did not require registration for the offenses his clients pleaded to and to make them now register as sex offenders "is not what they bargained for," Dickey said.

He said other defense attorneys are closely watching the situation.

Blair County Probation Officer William Decker, who supervises sex offenders on probation, said a review of county records determined that 38 people who previously did not have to register with police will now have to do so under the new law.

Shea and his staff initially thought they would be required to review records back to 1953 to determine if there were people convicted of offenses like corruption of a minors who would now have to register.

It would have required the review of thousands of criminal records.

The requirement has now been relaxed in Pennsylvania, and Shea said that Blair County is about 90 percent ready to implement the new requirements that will be put into place to track sexual offenders in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

Read the entire article here

---