NY - Sex offenders challenge Suffolk law

Original Article

See the video at the link above. The videos below are from older articles.

05/20/2013

WOODBURY - Two registered sex offenders are challenging a Suffolk law that calls for closely watching the online activity of convicted offenders.

The Community Protection Act (PDF) allows Parents for Megan's Law to act for police by monitoring offenders' online activity.

According to Newsday, offenders say the law violates their civil rights.

See Also:

• 2 sex offenders challenging Suffolk law (Subscription required)
• New sex offender monitoring law approved by county legislature
• Letter: Don't hire victims group to police
• USA FAIR Demands Laura Ahearn of Parents for Megan's Law Retract NAMBLA Smear

Video Link


Video Link

---

CA - California RSOL Challenges Santa Ana Ordinance, Registration Process

Original Article

05/03/2013

California RSOL filed a lawsuit in federal district court on May 2 challenging the sex offender ordinance and sex offender registration process in the City of Santa Ana. The ordinance contains presence restrictions including a prohibition of registrants using the city’s public library. The registration process requires all registrants to register inside the Santa Ana Jail for periods up to four hours as well to wear a prison uniform. Registrants are not allowed to leave during the registration process and are prohibited from using cell phones or any other communications devices during that process.

“The City of Santa Ana is robbing registrants of their constitutional rights,” stated CA RSOL President Janice Bellucci. “Not only are they prohibited from participating in most recreational areas in the city, they are not allowed to access public information in the city’s library.”

CA RSOL testified in oppositing to the ordinance at a City Council meeting in June 2012 prior to its passage. In addition, CA RSOL wrote letters to the City Council advising them that the proposed ordinance violated both the federal and state constitutions.

“It is indeed unfortunate that the City of Santa Ana failed to heed the warnings provided by CA RSOL,” stated CA RSOL Treasurer Frank Lindsay. He noted that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional a similar ordinance in the City of Albuquerque. As a result of that ruling, the City of Albuquerque paid the ACLU more than $1.5 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The lawsuit also alleges that the registration process for registrants within the City of Santa Ana violates the 4th amendment of the federal constitution because registrants are falsely imprisoned when placed in the Santa Ana Jail. City officials have stated it is necessary to register sex offenders in the jail because that is where registrants are to be photographed. When registrants are wearing jail uniforms, their photographs are taken and those photographs are later posted on the state’s Megan’s Law website.

“Photos of registrants wearing a prison uniform give the false impression that they are incarcerated,” stated Bellucci. “This blatant disregard for the truth must be stopped.”

There are three plaintiffs in this lawsuit — John Doe, Jane Doe and CA RSOL.

---

IN - Federal Court Rules Sex Offenders Cannot Be Denied Access to Facebook

Original Article

04/26/2013

By Donald Scarinci (WebSite)

Unfortunately, what people think should happen and what the law requires are not always the same. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently made headlines when it ruled that an Indiana statute that bans most registered sex offenders from using social networking websites, like Facebook, was unconstitutional.

The controversial law specifically prohibits certain sex offenders from “knowingly or intentionally using: a social networking web site” or “an instant messaging or chat room program” that “the offender knows allows a person who is less than eighteen (18) years of age to access or use the web site or program.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana challenged the statute on behalf of a class of unidentified sex offenders.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit overturned the law on First Amendment grounds, after concluding that the Indiana law was not narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest. “It broadly prohibits substantial protected speech rather than specifically targeting the evil of improper communications to minors,” the opinion in John Doe v. Prosecutor (PDF), Marion County, Indiana states.

The appeals court also noted that “the Supreme Court has invalidated bans on expressive activity that are not the substantive evil if the state had alternative means of combating the evil.” In this case, the court found that there were other ways for the state to curb inappropriate communication between minors and sex offenders. It specifically noted that Indiana has other existing laws that punish “inappropriate communication with a child” and communication “with the intent to gratify the sexual desires of the person or the individual,”

The court further highlighted that laws infringing on First Amendment rights must be narrowly tailored. “Subsequent Indiana statutes may well meet this requirement, but the blanket ban on social media in this case regrettably does not.”

According to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, the state is reviewing the opinion and considering its legal options, including appeal. From a legislative perspective, Sen. John Waterman, who authored the overturned law, has pledged to come up with a new way to protect children from sex offenders online that will pass constitutional scrutiny.

---

CA - Offenders Complain of Online Extortion

Original Article

03/22/2013

By REBEKAH KEARN

LOS ANGELES (CN) - Five Arizona men conspired to extort sex offenders by claiming they will take their names and photos off websites for $500, but leaving the information online whether their victims pay or not, 10 sex offenders claim in a federal RICO complaint.

Eight John Does and two Jane Does sued (PDF) five Arizona men, claiming they use websites to extort money from registered sex offenders, and from sex offenders who no longer have to register.

The defendants are Brent Oesterblad of Paradise Valley, David Oesterblad of Tempe, Chuck Rodrick II, Charles David Gilson, and Traci Heisig, all of Desert Hills.
- Visit Offendextortion.com for more info.

"This action challenges defendants' ... conspiracy to violate the RICO Act through a pattern of racketeering activity, including but not limited to extortion of plaintiffs by requiring payment to remove their names, photographs, and/or identifications as 'sex offenders' from multiple websites available to the public," the complaint states.

"This action also challenges defendants' publication of plaintiffs' names and photographs on websites available to the public without plaintiffs' prior consent in violation of the California right of publicity, California Civil Code §3344, as well as defendants' intentional infliction of emotional distress upon plaintiffs."

Plaintiffs say their names and photos have been posted on the websites SORarchives, Offendex and Online Detective, which are not named as parties to the complaint.

But the plaintiffs claim the defendants either own, operate, maintain or work for the three sites, which are accessible by anyone in the United States.

"Defendants' publication of plaintiffs' names and photographs as well as their identification of a sex offender on three public websites is outrageous conduct because it knowingly placed plaintiffs at risk of grave physical harm, even death, unemployment, and homelessness," the complaint states.

Though the websites publish both the John and Jane Does' names and pictures, they list only the John Does as sex offenders, according to the complaint.

Jane Doe No. 9 says she never has committed a sexual crime and is not a sex offender, but lives with her husband, John Doe No. 4, who has not had to register as a sex offender since January this year.

Jane Doe No. 10 says she never committed a sexual crime, but lives with her son, John Doe No. 5, who is not required to register as a sex offender.

"Defendants have conspired to extort money from plaintiffs by requiring each of them to pay for removal of their names and photographs from the 'SORarchives' website," the complaint states. "Plaintiffs have paid defendants to remove this information from the 'SORarchives' website; however, the information continues to be published therein."

The Does claim the defendants also "conspired to extort money from plaintiffs when they required plaintiffs to pay up to $500 for removal of their names and photographs" from Offendex and Online Detective. The plaintiffs say they refused to pay, so the defendants continued to publish their personal information on those sites.

The Does claim the defendants "gained great pecuniary benefit from the unauthorized use of plaintiffs' names and images by using them to build their businesses and promote their services."

The Does acknowledge that their names and photographs are part of the public record, but say this "does not relieve defendants of the obligation to obtain consent from those whose persona they are exploiting for personal gain."

They claim: "The enterprise which has created, operated, and maintained the websites has conducted in racketeering activity due to its extortion of funds from plaintiffs."

And: "Plaintiffs have suffered severe emotional distress, including public humiliation and depression, due to risk of grave physical harm, lost employment opportunities, and inability to obtain adequate housing."

The plaintiffs seek actual, punitive and treble damages for RICO violations, violations of the right of publicity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

They also want temporary and permanent injunctions and an order "requiring defendants to divest themselves of any interest, direct or indirect, in any website."

They are represented by Janice M. Bellucci of Santa Maria.

See Also:

• Do you know of any web sites who use public records to extort people out of money?

---

TX - Texas sex offenders in sight of rare policy win

Original Article

03/29/2013

By Paul J. Weber

AUSTIN (AP) - Four convicted sex offenders huddled in a busy hallway at the Texas Capitol, congratulating each other for going public and testifying against a bill that would plaster their criminal past on their Facebook profiles.

As expected, not everyone was moved by their objections.

"I don't feel bad for the guys that came in here whining," Republican state Rep. Steve Toth said after the men had left the room at a recent House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee meeting. A Democrat switched on her microphone to voice on the record that she, too, had no sympathy.
- Just wait until one of their own get slapped with the label, then they will see it differently.

In the Texas Legislature and statehouses nationwide, bills aimed at curbing how and where sex offenders can live and work are routine. But for the 72,000 registered sex offenders in Texas this year, there is optimism. A legislative victory is in sight, and it's not for sinking a fresh round of get-tougher proposals — but scaling back one already in place.

Pushing forward what advocates say would mark a minor but extraordinary softening of the state's sex offender laws, the GOP-controlled Senate has passed a bill to remove employer information from Texas' online sex offender registry.

"I've been on that registry for 15 years and going on for a lifetime," said [name withheld], 34, who works in information technology and said he was arrested at 18 for copying illegal images. "I've never re-offended. I have no intention to re-offend."

It's not a change of swaying lawmakers but the wringing hands of frustrated business leaders — they complain their bottom line suffers when the public discovers who's on the payroll.

The odd result: Sex offenders and Gov. Rick Perry's favorite conservative think tank is among those left seeing eye-to-eye. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which backs business-friendly bills, argues the current registry comes between the private relationship between employer and employee.

"We've seen if it bleeds, it leads in news coverage for years," said Marc Levine, director of the foundation's Center for Effective Justice. "Obviously, people may be able to make money by doing a news report, 'We went to a McDonald's and there was a sex offender serving as a cashier' or something. It may be salacious, but what's the public interest?"

Mary Sue Molnar, executive director of Texas Voices for Reason and Justice and the mother of a registered sex offender, said the bill is only the second her group has endorsed since forming in 2007.

Hers and a small band of similar organizations typically play defense in statehouses, arguing that decades of stacking one restriction atop another has pushed sex offenders to society's fringes. They say the result is growing ranks of unemployable and homeless outcasts, who then become more likely to commit new crimes.

"(Texas) would have every right to crow, jump up and down, dance jigs — whatever," said Brenda Jones, executive director of the Massachusetts-based Reform Sex Offender Laws Inc. "It would be a huge win. It's very difficult to do."

Pressure on lawmakers to step up restrictions began intensified in 2005 when 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford of Florida was sexually assaulted and killed by a sex offender, according to a 2006 report by Texas House researchers. States began enacting sweeping "Jessica's Laws" that generally included mandatory minimum sentences and prohibiting sex offenders from living with 2,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.

Rules were being put in place prior to that. In 2001, for example, a Texas judge ordered sex offenders to place conspicuous signs in their front yards announcing their convictions to neighbors. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that sex offender registries are not punitive, though an Indiana federal appeals court this month did uphold the rights of sex offenders to have social media accounts.
- Live with the laws for about 10 years, then tell us it's not punitive!

And states — Texas included— continue to roll out new legislation to more closely track sex offenders and restrict what they can and cannot do. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder this month signed a new law expanding the state's public sex offender registry to include a wider range of crimes involving minors. In Arkansas, a proposal would keep sex offenders whose victim was under 18 on the registry for life, whereas now they can petition for removal after 15 years.

About a dozen bills in the Texas Legislature this session would create new restrictions, including one reinforcing the authority of cities to keep sex offenders away from playgrounds and swimming pools.

In all, it's a reality check that keeps groups stopping short of predicting that wiping employer information off the registry will lead to a wave of other rollbacks.

Tough-on-crime conservatives aren't the only ones piling on the restrictions, either: The Texas proposal that would require sex offenders to list their convictions on social media profiles was filed by Democrats' go-to political attack dog, state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer.

"The state made a public policy decision in 1991 to get into this business. Every year we've expanded it," Martinez Fischer said. "It's all been done under the rubric that we need to protect the public. And most important, we need to protect those who probably can't protect themselves."
- And adding onto someones sentence, after the fact, is an unconstitutional ex post facto law!

Phil Taylor, a licensed sex offender treatment provider in Dallas, told lawmakers the social media bill would only further stigmatize sex offenders and hamper their efforts to rejoin society. He said 80 percent of sex offenders don't relapse after prison, and pointed out that the group has lower recidivism rates than burglars and other criminals.

Sex offenders, meanwhile, sought to make a pragmatic case to lawmakers: money and resources. State law requires released sex offenders to register within seven days of leaving prison. [name withheld], 43, said he fell out of compliance that first week of freedom because the state was so backlogged. Three months passed before [name withheld] said he was finally registered.

"I think if more people knew the person behind the mug shot, they would be more in favor of turning away from sex offender registry," [name withheld] said.

---

FL – ATTENTION REGISTRANTS IN FLORIDA

This was shared on their Facebook page only.

The Florida Action Committee is seeking potential plaintiffs for an action challenging the harsh residency restrictions in the State of Florida. We are currently compiling case consideration submissions from registrants who have been banished from cities, unable to find suitable housing, unable to live with immediate family members, forced to move from a residence, forced into homelessness, unable to live near family or employment or who have suffered other adverse consequences directly attributable to the residency restrictions.

To request a case consideration form, please contact the Florida Action Committee at info@floridaactioncommittee.org.

---

CO - Civil rights lawsuits attack excesses of Colorado's sex offender laws

Original Article

03/25/2013

By Alan Prendergast

Colorado's tough sex offender laws are supposed to keep predators under tight supervision.

But a series of lawsuits claim that the system is violating even minor offenders' rights to free speech and association, prohibiting contact with family members -- and, in one particularly bizarre case, telling a 62-year-old man that a discussion with a stepdaughter about her pregnancy constitutes unlawful "third party contact with a child."

Boulder civil rights attorney Alison Ruttenberg has filed at least three federal lawsuits in recent months challenging actions taken by probation officers and others responsible for enforcing the restrictions imposed by the state's Sex Offender Management Board. She's sued treatment providers and board members as well for what she considers over-the-top intrusions into her clients' family lives, choice of reading material and thought processes.

Colorado's controversial "containment" model for monitoring the behavior of sex offenders is based on the premise that there's no known cure for such offenders. But critics of the system have long maintained that it lumps individuals convicted of a minor offense, such as indecent exposure, with violent predators and goes to absurd lengths to "contain" them. A recent report by independent evaluators (PDF) of the state's in-prison treatment program found many inconsistencies and possibly coercive tactics in the program that may be keeping offenders in prison longer than necessary.

One of the lawsuits filed by Ruttenberg contends that the SOMB guidelines for managing sex offenders "are poorly researched, not based on peer-reviewed scientific research, and are largely based on [SOMB member] Peggy Heil's personal publications, which are not peer reviewed, and/or based on publications by victim's advocacy groups."

That case concerns a 62-year-old delivery truck driver who was convicted of misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact based on the complaint of an adult female grocery store employee in Canon City. The woman claimed the man groped her buttocks and breast while they were unloading his truck; the man insisted it was an "unwanted hug" offered to someone he'd hugged before.

The man was sentenced to three years on probation, but he soon learned that his status as a convicted sex offender involved several additional requirements. According to the lawsuit, his probation officer and treatment provider informed him that he could no longer visit his male best friend, have any contact with his grandchildren, or even discuss his grandchildren with his wife's adult children -- even though his crime didn't involve children. And his wife was told to remove all pictures of the grandchildren from the residence: "She has to choose between living with her husband and having pictures of her grandchildren displayed in her house."

The final straw, Ruttenberg's complaint alleges, came after one of the man's stepdaughters called to inform him of her pregnancy and seek advice. The conversation about the fetus was supposedly deemed "third party contact with a child."

In a separate legal action, another Ruttenberg client -- also convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with an adult female and with no history of sexual contact with children -- claims that his probation officer seized from his home vintage stuffed animals given to his wife by her grandmother on the theory that they could be used to "lure children." He also confiscated birding magazines, newspapers and a National Geographic merchandise catalog. The suit claims he was subsequently ordered not to have any contact with his wife and ordered to live in homeless shelters: "This served no legitimate penological goal and instead was done with the intent to harass and humiliate and to retaliate against him and his wife."

Because her client had to avoid all contact with children, Ruttenberg says, he couldn't risk visiting the library, parks or other haunts of the homeless when the shelters weren't open, and thus had to spend most of his days in his car. At the heart of the issue, the lawsuit contends, is that "Colorado probation and parole officers have a 'one size fits all' policy, and all sex offenders are treated the same. Therefore, anyone who has been convicted of a sex offense is treated as if he or she is a serial pedophile."

Ruttenberg says she's received many other complaints from offenders facing probation revocation and prison time and is considering filing other cases. "Apparently this happens all the time," she says.

---

CA - California Reform Sex Offender Laws Challenges Websites in Federal District Court

Original Article

03/20/2013

California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) filed a lawsuit (PDF) in federal district court today challenging websites which identify individuals as sex offenders and include their personal information, including names, photos, and home addresses as well as demand up to $500 for removal of that information from the websites.

“It is time to stop the extortion of more than 750,000 individuals in this country,” stated Janice Bellucci, President of CA RSOL. “Those who work for or with these websites have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern of racketeering activities.”

According to the lawsuit, individuals connected with three websites – Offendex, Online Detective and SORarchives have violated both federal and state laws. The laws include the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.), the right of publicity (California Civil Code 3344) as well as the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

“We’ve heard so many stories of people who have completed their registration period and yet are unable to move on with their lives,” stated Brenda Jones, Executive Director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc. “The only way they can be free is to submit to the extortion of profiteers like Offendex and that is simply appalling.”

There are a total of 10 plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including residents from five states (California, Washington, Oregon, Kentucky and Tennessee). Plaintiffs include individuals convicted of sex-related offenses as well as one wife and one mother who have never been convicted of a crime.

“For-profit companies that provide false information about a former offender cause collateral damage to the families of offenders,” stated Vicki Henry, Director of Women Against Registry. “The additional financial burdens placed on the families by the companies that require a fee for removal from their website and the misinterpretation of the individual significantly limit the employment opportunities of a former offender.”

The lawsuit was filed today in U.S.District Court, Central District of California, Western Division in Los Angeles, California. Organizations providing support, including financial support, to this effort include Women Against Registry, Reform Sex Offender Laws, Inc., and Families Against the Registry (Facebook).

See Also:

• Do you know of any web sites who use public records to extort people out of money?

---

PA - Family of girl sexually abused by neighbor sue to force him to BUY their home?

Original Article

Surely this will be thrown out? So I guess he must purchase all the homes in the neighborhood where he lives? Come on, this is just insane!

03/17/2013

By HELEN POW

The family of a young girl sexually abused by a neighbor two years ago is trying to make her attacker buy their home, in a groundbreaking lawsuit.

The couple, from Upper Milford Township in Pennsylvania, want to get away from [name withheld] but they claim his presence in the neighborhood has made their property impossible to sell.

In the first suit of its kind, the unnamed couple are asking a judge to force the 65-year-old, his wife and his mother to buy their residence, at a cost of $235,000, and pay for them to move.

In addition, the family is going after damages for the child's pain and suffering caused by the 2011 molestation.

[name withheld] was sentenced to almost two years in jail after he pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting the child. Investigators said he lured the victim into his basement by telling her he wanted to show her a bear's head mounted on the wall. After telling the girl to feel the bear, he made her take off her clothes then assaulted her.

The child's father found out and called police. The family allege [name withheld] assaulted their daughter, who he used to take on drives, play games and give candy and sweets to, multiple times between 2009 and 2011.

After [name withheld] was released from prison, he resumed his old address, but the victim's family claim in the lawsuit that they're 'under duress' to move house now he's back living in the neighborhood.

Legal experts say this is the first time a lawsuit has attempted to force a defendant to buy a home, and many believe a judge wouldn't even have the power grant such a request.

See Also:

• What happens to your home’s value when a registered sex offender moves in next door?

Read the rest of the article here

---

CA - Requesting Plaintiffs for Civil Rights Suit in Santa Ana, CA

The following was sent to us via the contact form and posted with the users permission. The name has been abbreviated for their own protection.

The following is an appeal by the California Reform Sex Offender Laws organization. We are trying to get plaintiffs for a civil rights suit against the Santa Ana Police Department. The organization president has approved the following text for release:

Are you a registered sex offender in the city of Santa Ana, California? The staff at California Reform Sex Offender Laws would like to contact you to discuss your experiences during your annual registration in the city of Santa Ana including but not limited to requirement to wear a prison uniform, registration in the city jail, and/or inability to leave during the registration process.

Requirements:

1. Required to register on California Megan's Law (PDF) as per California Statute 290
2. Required to register at the Santa Ana Police Department

ALL contacts with California RSOL are confidential and will NOT be reported to any other authority nor entity at ANY stage of our interviewing process. To arrange for an interview, please call 805-896-7854 or send a message through our contact form on our website contact page. You can also mail us at the following address:

CA RSOL

8721 Santa Monica Blvd., Box 855

Los Angeles, CA 90069-4507

Help make the city of Santa Ana safer for registrants. Thank you.

Please call 805-896-7854 if you wish to verify before publication. Thanks.

---

WI - Court upholds sex offender residency rule

Gov. Scott Walker

Original Article

03/13/2013

MADISON (AP) - A state appeals court has upheld a city ordinance that prohibits child sex offenders from living near elementary schools.

Convicted child sex offender [name withheld] moved into a South Milwaukee residence that was within 1,000 feet of Lakeview School in 2010. A Milwaukee County judge ordered him to move.

[name withheld] argued he wasn't given a chance to show he poses no danger to children. He also contended the ordinance unconstitutionally creates additional punishment.

The 1st District Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday [name withheld] has no right to an individual risk assessment and the regulations are designed to protect the community, not punish offenders.

[name withheld]'s attorney, Larry Dupuis (ACLU), says the ruling misses the mark. He says he is considering asking the state Supreme Court to take the case.

---

ME - Court upholds sex offender registration for those convicted before 1999

Original Article

03/05/2013

By Judy Harrison

PORTLAND - The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday upheld the law that requires information about people convicted of sex crimes before 1999 to be listed on the Maine Sex Offender Registry.

In a rare 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley and Associate Justices Jon Levy, Andrew Mead and Susan Gorman agreed that the law is constitutional. Associate Justices Donald Alexander, Warren Silver and Joseph Jabar dissented.

“We conclude that SORNA [Maine's Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act] of 1999 is nonpunitive,” Mead wrote for the majority in a 39-page opinion (PDF).
- It's ex post facto punishment, which is a violation of the US Constitution and Maine's Constitution!  If you had to live by your own draconian laws you'd see it that way as well.

Silver in the 13-page dissent said that the requirements of the law “are punishment to those who have completed their sentences and paid back society long ago.”

More than a dozen sex offenders appealed a 2011 decision by Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy. The men, identified only as John Does in court documents, were seeking to have their names removed from the registry because they had completed their sentences prior to 1999.

The case the justices ruled on Tuesday dates back to 2006, when the plaintiffs filed suit in Kennebec County Superior Court challenging the state’s 1999 sex offender registry law and seeking to remove their names from the registry. Lawmakers amended the law in 2005 so it would apply retroactively and require all sex offenders to register who had committed crimes after Jan. 1, 1982.

The chief plaintiff, known in court documents as John Doe I, was convicted in 1985 of unlawful sexual contact with a family member and was sentenced to five years in prison with all but 60 days suspended and two years’ probation. He has not been convicted of any sex offenses since. He argued that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration law violated his constitutional rights.

This was the second time Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices heard arguments related to the case.

The primary challenge to Maine’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was that it violated the rights of plaintiffs who were convicted before the law requiring them to register as sex offenders existed.

Maine’s sex offender registry has gone through a number of changes since it was created in 1992. It attracted national attention when, on April 16, 2006, a 20-year-old Canadian man killed two sex offenders in Maine before killing himself after getting their names from the state’s online registry.

The current case stems from a court case filed less than two weeks later challenging the law. Over time, several dozen John Does joined the case, but a number of them later dropped out after the Legislature amended the law in 2009 to allow some sex offenders to be removed from the registry if they had completed their sentences, committed no additional crimes and met other standards.

---

NY - Warren County suspends sex offender residence ban

Original Article

02/28/2013

By JON ALEXANDER

QUEENSBURY - Warren County has suspended enforcement of its law that bans registered sex offenders from living close to schools, playgrounds and parks in the face of a lawsuit charging the law is unconstitutional, according to the lawyer for the plaintiff.

The county’s 2006 law limits where any sex criminal convicted of illicit acts against children can live and work.
- This is not true!  The law affects all ex-sex offenders, not just those who have harmed children, we are willing to bet.

Albany-based lawyer Kathy Manley, who represents an unnamed level two sex offender, said Warren County’s law banning convicted sex criminals from living or working within 1,000 feet of schools and parks, even after they’ve completed parole, unlawfully supersedes state jurisdiction.

“It doesn’t make sense to essentially banish people from areas where they could potentially get treatment or find employment,” she said.

State law places limitations on where offenders can live and work only until they have completed parole.
- We also don't think this is true.  From what we've heard, these residency restrictions continue even after parole / probation.  Just ask anybody in New York who is dealing with the laws.

The offender Manley represents — listed as “John Doe” in the lawsuit filed Feb. 6 — wants to move in with his mother in Queensbury, according to court documents filed at Warren County state Supreme Court.

He was convicted in 2010 in Washington County of sexual acts with a minor who was under 16, and he served two years in prison, the lawsuit states. Manley said her client has completed parole, but is still barred from moving in with his mother under county law.
- Exactly, like we said above, it goes on beyond parole / probation.

County Attorney Martin Auffredou has agreed to suspend enforcement of the county law until the constitutional challenge is settled.

“What we’re going to do is not enforce this for the time being until I talk to the Board of Supervisors about it,” Auffredou said.

John Doe is expected to move in to his mother’s residence soon, Manley said.

Warren County Board Chairman Kevin Geraghty and Sheriff Bud York both acknowledged talking this week with Auffredou about the matter. York declined comment when asked about the policy change.

Geraghty said no one has spoken yet about repealing the local law, and he referred any additional comment to Auffredou.

Washington County officials couldn’t provide John Doe’s identity with the information provided in the lawsuit.

“We’re giving ourselves time to look at the law and how comparable laws have fared in other counties,” Auffredou said. “In my view, there is sufficient state law in place as a safeguard.”

Manley said she wasn’t sure which school playground or public park John Doe’s mother lives near.

Counties across the state — including Washington County — passed similar sex offender statutes in recent years, only to have them ruled unconstitutional in the courts.

Essex and Franklin county lawmakers recently convened a forum to discuss what local governments could do to address growing concern about where local sex offenders live and work.

The discussions resulted in little action after county lawyers advised county lawmakers of the constitutional problems with such restrictions.

---

IN - Indiana won't challenge sex offender Facebook ruling

Original Article

02/28/2013

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana has decided not to ask a federal appeals court to reconsider a ruling that overturned a state law that banned convicted sex offenders from social networking websites.

American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana legal director Ken Falk said Thursday that the attorney general's office would not ask the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to rehear the case.

The court said in January that the 2008 law was too broad and violated freedom of speech.

State lawmakers are currently rewriting the law to try to make it conform to constitutional limits. A Senate committee has approved an amended version that applies only to offenders convicted of child-related sex crimes who knowingly use social networks, instant messaging or chat rooms to communicate with children under age 16.

---

MA - Sex offenders’ $1.2M tab

Original Article

02/25/2013

By Erin Smith

The state’s most dangerous sex predators ran up a $1.2 million taxpayer-funded legal tab last year by quietly using an obscure provision in state law that lets them hire public defenders to go behind closed doors and argue to keep their identities and whereabouts secret, a Herald review found.

Since 2003, when the state ordered the most dangerous, or Level 3, sex offenders be posted on a public website, convicts have flooded the Committee for Public Counsel Services with requests for lower, laxer classification. Since then, the public defenders’ office has had to shell out skyrocketing sums for lawyers to take those cases before the Sex Offenders Registry Board.

Last year alone, the bill to represent indigent convicts cost taxpayers $1,228,065. That’s up a hundredfold from $11,293 in 2002.

“These sex offenders have already been criminally convicted in court. Now we’re handing them taxpayer-funded lawyers so they can attack our laws? It’s ludicrous,” said Laurie Myers, a longtime advocate for tougher laws for the state’s roughly 11,100 sex offenders. “This is an administrative hearing. If you get a traffic ticket, no one gives you a free lawyer.”
- Everybody is entitled to free legal counsel if they cannot afford it, based on the bill of rights!  That is part of the Miranda rights.

What’s more, the legal tab could rise even higher under a bill filed recently by state Rep. Brian Mannal. The Barnstable Democrat wants the registry board to contact all sex offenders requesting reclassification or removal from the online registry and inform them of their right to a hearing and a free, taxpayer-funded lawyer if they’re deemed indigent.

The classification system is key to public safety — making the difference between “high-risk” Level 3 offenders who must have their names, mug shots, crimes and addresses posted on the Web; “moderate-risk” Level 2 offenders, whose names are available only upon request from the board or local police departments, and “low-risk” Level 1 sex offenders, whose identities are available only to law enforcement and certain state agencies.
- The public registry (hit-list) should be taken offline and used by police only for all tier levels.  It's nothing more than a phone book for vigilantes to use to look up, harass and in some cases murder ex-sex offenders or an innocent person.

Unlike parole hearings for second-degree murderers, critics point out, hearings before the Sex Offender Registry Board are held behind closed doors and without notice, or input, from victims or their families.

The board does not report how many Level 3 offenders successfully got their classification knocked down to Level 2, nor how many Level 2 offenders got reclassified as Level 1. As a result, it’s impossible to determine how many of these sexual predators have gone on to commit new crimes.
- Sex offender does not equal sexual predator!

The Committee for Public Counsel Services said they’re just following the law by representing convicts in their classification appeals.

“The Legislature obviously recognized that this was an important enabling issue. This isn’t something that CPCS has unilaterally decided is a good idea,” said Lisa Hewitt, general counsel at CPCS.

Rep. Mannal, a criminal defense attorney, defended his bill, saying, “I think for the folks that go through this process — while it’s not a criminal proceeding — it will have a lasting impact on their lives. Someone who doesn’t have a legal background could find themselves unmatched in this environment.”

Meanwhile, state Rep. Brad Jones (R-North Reading) has filed a bill to get taxpayers off the hook for paying convicted sex offenders’ legal fees.

“After you’ve been convicted and the taxpayer has paid for your incarceration, now we’re going to have the taxpayer pay to say you’re not at risk of re-offending?” Jones said. “I think that’s an unjustifiable expense and it’s something that’s ballooned exponentially.”

See Also:

• Herald: State loophole protecting Level 3 sex offenders
• Large legal bill for sex offenders (Video Below)

Video Link

---

PA - USA Fair - From a fellow advocate in Pennsylvania

Original Facebook Post

Hi everyone,

I wanted to let the group know about the conversation I just had with my contact at the Defender Assoc. of Phila. She told me they are going to file petitions against the AWA on behalf of RSO's that fit certain criteria. The criteria is that the RSO was a 10 year registrant and is now a lifetime registrant or was not on Megan's Law before Dec. 20th and is now on one of the tiers. They are focusing on the contract clause part of the law. They sent the paperwork out in January. For anyone who wants to call the Defender Assoc. of Phila., the number is 215-568-3190.

She also said they have been working with the ACLU about a civil case, but the ACLU would take the lead on that since the Defender Assoc. only deals with criminal cases. It would be a long time before we see anything in the courts. I just spoke with a someone from the ACLU today and they said the same thing. They are still in the research stages. I filed a complaint with them regarding my registration status due to the AWA and Megan's Law. They said over 100 people have done the same and I think everyone in the group should do the same, but of course it's up to you. You need to check their website to find your local chapter and call them to file a complaint or write a letter. http://www.aclupa.org/

---

NY - WOW! - USA Fair fund raiser for litigation against New York's e-STOP law

Yesterday, USA FAIR sent out an email looking to raise $2,500 by March 1st to fund our pending litigation against New York State's eStop law, which restricts law abiding former offenders from accessing social networks.

To our immense excitement and gratitude, in less than 24 hours, as of the sending of this email, we have raised $1,990 - leaving us just $510 short!

If you haven't made a pledge yet, could you step up now and help put us over the top? You can do so by clicking HERE.

The sooner we have the $2,500 retainer the sooner we can file the case. And if we already reached our goal by the time you go online, please still give to help cover the additional expenses such as court filing fees, printing expenses, etc.

We are planning our first major press conference on the day we file and we'll give you advance notice before it happens.

A thousand thanks - or 2,500 thanks to be exact!

Shana Rowan
Executive Director

http://www.usafair.org

---

OK - Sex Offenders Challenge Registry Rules In Oklahoma Supreme Court

Original Article

02/05/2013

OKLAHOMA CITY - Attorneys for three men who are challenging Oklahoma's sex offender registry laws say they are a form of punishment and are unconstitutional.

The attorneys made the charges on Tuesday during oral arguments before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Their clients were convicted of various sex crimes in other states and want to stop the state from placing their names on the sex offender registry.

Each case challenges the state's attempt to make its sex offender registration rules retroactive.

Two of the men claim they are exempt from the rules because their crimes pre-date the creation of the registry in 1989. The other was required to register for 10 years when he was sentenced and is challenging the state's attempt to make him register longer following legislative amendments to the registry rules.

---

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 - 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.

---