Saturday, September 15, 2012

Did you know you can request your home address be removed from online mapping services?

Did you know you can request your home address be removed from Google, Yahoo, Bing and other mapping services?

Well you can, and we recommend you do it for your own safety, especially if you are wearing the "sex offender" label.

Many online registries use these mapping services, and if you request yours be removed, then it will also be unmappable from the many registries as well.

Below is a link for Google Maps, but other mapping services have a similar process:

http://tinyurl.com/9tsedws

01) Enter your home address, then enter street view. Once you do, you will see a REPORT A PROBLEM link, click that.


02) You will then need to click the PRIVACY CONCERN link and follow the instructions.


CA - Judge Rules San Diego Sex Offender Residency Restrictions Unreasonable

Original Article

09/14/2012

By Lorraine Bailey

It is "unreasonable" and "oppressive" to forbid registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park, a California appeals court ruled.

California voters adopted Proposition 83 (PDF), also known as Jessica's Law, in 2006 to impose strict regulations on registered sex offenders.

One provision in particular prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park.

In 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that the housing restriction applies to all paroled sex offenders, regardless of when they committed their crime, but the court said it did not have enough evidence to rule on law's constitutionality.

Following this ruling, [name 1 withheld], [name 2 withheld], [name 3 withheld] and [name 4 withheld], all registered sex offenders living in San Diego County, challenged the residency restriction in Superior Court.

All four parolees were unable to find housing after their release: [name 1 withheld] and [name 3 withheld] lived in an alley behind the parole office on the advice of their parole agents, [name 4 withheld] lived in the San Diego riverbed with other registered sex offenders who had no place to live, and [name 2 withheld] lived in his van.

In 2011, Judge Michael Wellington held an eight-day evidentiary hearing in which experts testified that 24.5 percent of San Diego residential properties comply with the Jessica's Law residency requirement, but most of these dwellings are single-family homes. Less than 3 percent of multifamily housing meets the requirement.

Wellington subsequently ruled that the parole condition was "unconstitutionally 'unreasonable'" because it "violated petitioners' right to intrastate travel, their right to establish a home and their right to privacy and was not narrowly drawn and specifically tailored to the individual circumstances of each sex offender parolee."

California's Fourth Appellate District affirmed Tuesday, finding that the law's "blanket enforcement as a parole condition in San Diego County has been unreasonable and constitutes arbitrary and oppressive official action."

San Diego's housing market for registered sex offenders is "grim," according to the ruling.

"Given the county's low vacancy rate, the petitioners' general inability to pay more than $850 to $1,000 per month for rent, and the unwillingness of many landlords to rent to petitioners with their criminal histories, significantly less than three percent of the county's multifamily residences are realistically available to registered sex offender parolees in the county," Justice Patricia Benke wrote for a three-member panel. "There are so few legal housing options in urban areas in the county that many offenders face the choice of living in rural areas or becoming homeless."

The panel also noted how the residency restriction limits parolees' access to rehabilitative and medical treatment services, which "are generally located in the densely populated areas of the county."

"Relegated to rural areas of the county, petitioners are cut off from access to employment, public transportation and medical care," Benke wrote.

"We find the blanket residency restriction, as applied in San Diego County, excessive and unduly broad in relation to its purpose - namely, to establish predator free zones around schools and parks where children gather," she concluded. "The statute limits the housing choices of all sex offenders identically, without regard to the type of victim or the risk of reoffending."

See Also:


CA - Marina del Rey Officer (Kenneth Alexander) Sentenced in Teen Sex Case

Original Article

09/14/2012

By David Carini

A former Los Angeles County Sheriff Deputy assigned to the Marina del Rey station was sentenced on Friday to serve 90 days in jail for having sexual relations with an underage girl.

Kenneth Alexander, 46, will also be on supervised probation for five years and attend a year of sex offender counseling. He must also stay away from the victim, who was 15-years-old at the time of the first incident in 2011, and her mother. He also must not posses any weapons while on probation.

An informant contacted the Los Angeles County Child Abuse Hotline on Aug. 16, 2011. Detectives began following up on leads until eventually interviewing both the victim and Alexander. Alexander turned himself in on Oct. 20, 2011.

On Aug. 10, he plead no contest to the felony charge of oral sex with a minor. He has been free on bail since his arrest.

Alexander must spend at least 60 days in jail, but could end up serving the last 30 under house arrest with electronic monitoring.


NH - Sex offender residency case dropped

Original Article

09/15/2012

By Annmarie Timmins

Mayor still wants limits in place

The city of Franklin has dropped its legal fight to overturn a January court decision that found its ordinance restricting the residency of sex offenders unconstitutional. But the city will try other ways to keep sex offenders from living near schools, parks and other places children congregate, Mayor Ken Merrifield said.

The city's appeal was scheduled to be heard by the state Supreme Court next week.

"We have conferred with our legal counsel, and we really had only filed the appeal to keep that door open," Merrifield said. "It really was never our most likely response to this. We recognized the expense would be tremendous, so the city council has opted not to keep that door open right now."

The decision means the city cannot enforce the residency part of the 2007 ordinance, which forbids registered sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of schools, playgrounds, athletic fields, public beaches, child-care facilities and municipal ski areas.

But Merrifield said the city can continue to enforce the other part of the ordinance prohibiting a registered sex offender from entering a school or child-care facility, unless specifically authorized by the school administration or child-care facility administrators.

The city adopted the ordinance in 2007. It wasn't challenged until 2010, when [name withheld], a Massachusetts sex offender, moved into a Franklin apartment.

[name withheld] had served three years in a Massachusetts prison nearly 25 years earlier for sexually assaulting a child. When he registered his new address with the Franklin police in 2010, he was told he had to give up his apartment because it was within 2,500 feet of a school.

A few weeks later, [name withheld] sued with the help of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. Barbara Keshen, staff attorney for the nonprofit, argued that the city could not restrict where a person lived without showing a compelling reason justifying the restriction.

In January Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Larry Smukler ruled against the city, saying the city had failed to show the restriction would actually protect children. Smukler also said in his ruling that the city failed to show that its infringement on a person's right to live where he or she wants meets "an important government interest," which in this case is the protection of children.

Keshen told the Monitor in April that she welcomed the city's appeal because she believed a win at the state Supreme Court would discourage other towns from adopting ordinances restricting where registered sex offenders could live.

Yesterday, Keshen said she was disappointed the high court won't get the case. But she thinks the lower court challenge of Franklin's ordinance, and Dover's before that, have been effective.

"It's been several years since Dover was decided," she said. "In that time, no city or town has tried to enact a residency restriction. I don't think New Hampshire citizens are going to be pursuing it. And now (with the Franklin appeal dropped) there is even more a reason for not doing so."

Currently, Tilton, Northfield and Boscawen have ordinances restricting where registered sex offenders can live. They were adopted before the Dover ordinance was thrown out. Those ordinances have not been challenged, but Keshen said they would be if she heard from a sex offender affected by ordinances in those communities.

Merrifield said yesterday the city may try to revise its ordinance in a way that passes constitutional muster. City officials may also ask the Legislature to pass a law allowing communities to restrict where a sex offender can live, he said.

Keshen said she doesn't believe either effort would be successful because there has been no evidence that residency restrictions protect children. She said the evidence shows otherwise.