Sunday, April 22, 2012

MA - Jose Salgado, TSA Agent, Arrested In Child Porn Crackdown

Original Article


An agent with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been suspended from his job after he was arrested for allegedly having and sharing images of child pornography.

NECN reports that Jose Salgado, a TSA screener at Logan airport in Boston, was collared as part of a massive child pornography crackdown in Massachusetts.

"These people are your neighbors," Marian McGovern, Massachusetts state police colonel, said at a press conference. "These people look just like everyone else, and they're doing these things under the cover of their own homes."

Salgado was one of 55 people nabbed and accused of various child pornography-related charges, according to the Boston Herald.

"This is just a drop in the bucket,” state police Sgt. Michael Hill of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force told the Herald.

News of Salgado's arrest comes just one month after ABC News reported that a former TSA agent in Maryland was indicted on federal child pornography charges.

WV - State Police sued over sex offender listing

Original Article


By Travis Crum

Logan man told to register because of 1976 adultery

CHARLESTON - A Logan County man is suing the West Virginia State Police, claiming he was required to register as a sex offender for a crime abolished in the 1980s.

[name withheld] of Logan appeared on the registry next to alleged sexual predators and pedophiles about six weeks after the State Police was ordered to remove him, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, seeks damages for humiliation [name withheld] says he suffered during his time on the registry. It also requests the State Police to reevaluate how troopers are trained to maintain and understand sex offender laws.

According to the lawsuit, [name withheld] was indicted on June 1975 on a charge of felony forcible intercourse with a female without consent in Marion County.

Robert Kuenzel, [name withheld]'s attorney, said the charge arose after [name withheld] had sex with another man's wife near Eldora.

"He had a relationship with a married lady," Kuenzel said, "and the bottom line is, her husband found out and pushed the button."

After prosecutors went through the evidence, they allowed [name withheld] to plead no contest on Oct. 27, 1976, to the lesser charge of misdemeanor sexual misconduct -- or adultery. He spent eight days in jail.

Sometime in the 1980s, the West Virginia Legislature abolished the crime of adultery, according to the lawsuit.

[name withheld] lived the next 35 years in West Virginia without any problems and moved to Logan County, where he lived and worked, Kuenzel said. [name withheld] even earned top security clearance to operate Ham radios for the U.S. Coast Guard, he said.

On Aug. 30, 2010, though, [name withheld] received a letter from State Police Sgt. J.E. Skidmore requiring him to register as a sex offender or face imprisonment.

"Our records indicate that you were convicted of 1 Count of Sexual Misconduct on October 27, 1976, thus subjecting you to registration as a sex offender for life," Skidmore wrote in the letter.

[name withheld] responded to the letter and registered as ordered.
- He should have contacted a lawyer as soon as he got the letter!

Kuenzel said that, soon after, [name withheld]'s image, age, height, weight and home address were posted to the websites of the State Police and countless watchdog groups.

IN - Marion County repairs sex offender registry (Or did they?)

Original Article

If you had a product you were selling that had so many errors in it, and it was basically useless, would you continue to sell it as a good tool?  Well, this state is doing just that!


By Alex Campbell

Sheriff removes 'Wallace offenders' in the name of accuracy, but other counties say the public is better served by leaving them on

A week after The Indianapolis Star exposed numerous errors on Marion County's portion of the state sex offender registry, the sheriff's office has made good on its pledge to do something.

It has wiped away many of the mistakes.

Gone is the convicted rapist who had been shown living at the same location as a day-care center. Gone, too, is the one who was shown at an address that no longer exists. And gone is the offender who moved to Colorado at least 21/2 years ago but nevertheless was shown in the 500 block of East 31st Street.

Marion County Sheriff John Layton completely removed these offenders -- and 523 others -- from the registry in one fell swoop last week. In an instant he fixed dozens of the accuracy problems exposed by The Star.

But, in doing so, he also placed Marion County at odds with numerous state officials and lawmakers in a philosophical debate over how best to handle a particular group of offenders.

The debate is over so-called "Wallace offenders," whose crimes did not require registration when they committed them. Thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling nearly three years ago, these offenders don't have to update law enforcement when they move.

The result is that untold numbers of "Wallace offenders" in Indiana remain on the registry, but with outdated addresses. And those locations pop up and look like current addresses of sex offenders when a person does a typical search by address.

The Star's April 15 story, for example, found dozens of such instances in Marion County alone.

"Based on the report," Layton wrote in a letter to The Star, "in accord with the Indiana Supreme Court decision, I have ordered 'Wallace Offenders' removed from the system."

The order reduces the size of the county's portion of the state registry by more than 25 percent. Layton's letter thanked The Star "for bringing a clearer focus on this ever challenging endeavor."
- Why does it take an outside force to bring these errors and issues to focus?  If the people monitoring the ex-offenders and the registry were doing their jobs, then they would find it just as easy as the news media did.

His legal counsel, Kevin Murray, told The Star on Friday that Layton was worried about "the integrity of the system" and felt that keeping these offenders without verifying their addresses "sends a mixed message."

That mirrors the position of another of the state's largest counties, Allen County.

But it is a position in conflict with others -- and illustrates the county-by-county inconsistency with the registry, which was created by the legislature in 1994.

Many other counties prefer keeping Wallace offenders on the public registry. And they have the support of Department of Correction officials and the attorney general, who have argued -- at the Statehouse and in court -- that these offenders should stay on, even if law enforcement no longer tracks where they live.
- We disagree!  If the Supreme Court said that these laws cannot be applied to those who pre-date the law, then those offenders should be removed, or it's ex post facto punishment.

Even if it means increasing the likelihood of sharing erroneous information with the public.
- What?  This is like selling someone a manual on a car which is no longer applicable, but out-dated and no longer relevant.  Why would you want to report bogus information?  Unless it's to bloat the registry and scare people into funding it for money?

Attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin would not comment on Marion County's decision. A Department of Correction official did not return a message left Friday afternoon.

Each county has the final say on how it manages its sex offenders, as long as it fits with the letter of the law. But the statewide Indiana Sheriffs' Association provides guidelines on "best practices" in the field, and its executive director, Steve Luce, said Friday that he still recommends keeping Wallace offenders on the registry, and marking them in some way to make it clear that they might have moved.

Luce acknowledged that regardless, the lack of a uniform standard is an issue. Depending on the county in which a Wallace offender lives, that person might be off the registry completely or might still be tracked like any other offender.
- And think about it, how much wasted time is done by having the sheriff's go around to addresses where nobody lives?  That is a waste of money, time, gas, etc!

The differences are illustrated among the counties that make up the Indianapolis metro region. Johnson County actively notifies Wallace offenders that they can go to court to get taken off the registry, but it tracks them until they do so. Hamilton County appears to keep Wallace offenders on its registry, too.
- I don't get it, if the Supreme Court said you cannot force these people to register and notify you when they move, change jobs, etc, then why do they have to spend more of the money they probably do not have to get their names off the list?  Or is it to extort them a little more to get more money from them?

Hancock County, however, treats Wallace offenders the same way Marion County did before last week. But that, too, might change.

Karen Robinson, Hancock county's sex offender coordinator, said she didn't realize until Friday that Wallace offenders still showed up on the map at their last known addresses. She said she planned to look into the issue.

The Indiana Sheriffs' Association plans to discuss the consistency issue at its next quarterly meeting, in May. But long term, said Murray from the sheriff's office, state lawmakers ought to clear things up.
- Why do you need state law makers in the mix to further mess things up?  If the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, then remove the people from the registry, it's that simple, IMO.

"I think that when you have diversity of opinion," he said, "that means you have to go back to the legislature."

Wallace offenders, however, are not the only source of errors in the registry -- or the only errors Marion County fixed this past week.

The Star also discovered clusters of sex offenders supposedly living on Indiana Avenue by the Downtown Canal and on Marion Avenue but who were actually locked up in prison or jail.

But they, too, are now gone -- removed from the map and no longer "lurking" in a neighborhood near you.
- Have they verified all this?  What if they removed someone who was suppose to be on there?  Is that person going to now be arrested and thrown in prison for updating the registry, but the police removed it without checking the info?

Related Article: