Posts Tagged jessica’s law

GA: Low Risk Sex Offenders May Get a Break

Mar 17

Posted by constitutionalfights in Education, Legal / Official Info, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

walb.com: Low Risk Sex Offenders May Get a Break.

Albany, GA - Under a new bill that has cleared the Georgia House, some low risk sex offenders would be able to get off the state’s registry.

The legislation would let certain inmates petition the courts to remove them from the state sex offender registry after completing their sentences, like the disabled, and so-called Romeo and Juliet statutory rape cases, in which the teens are close in age.

“As a person charged with statutory rape, instead of having to wait for the ten years that the law says they have to wait to have removal from the list, they can now petition the courts earlier,” said Dougherty County Sheriff Kevin Sproul.

“The Judge will make the final decision, but it will give them some guidelines to make the decision,” said Dougherty District Attorney Greg Edwards.

The legislation was introduced last year, and also makes other changes to bring Georgia’s tough sex offender law in line with court rulings. The vote was 165 to 1 passing the bill

Georgia House Bill 571 Excerpts :

Section6:

“Said article is further amended by revising subsection (g) of Code Section 42-1-12, relating to the State Sexual Offender Registry, as follows:

“(g)(1) Any A sexual offender required to register under this Code section who meets the criteria set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection may petition the superior court of the jurisdiction in which the sexual offender is registered to be released from the registration requirements and from the residency or employment restrictions of this Code section in accordance with the provisions of Code Section 42-1-16. The court may issue an order releasing the sexual offender from further registration if the court finds that the sexual offender does not pose a substantial risk of perpetrating any future dangerous sexual offense.”

Section 9:
“(b)(1) If the board determines that a sexual offender should be classified as a Level II risk assessment classification or as a sexually dangerous predator, the sexual offender may petition the board to reevaluate his or her classification. To file a petition for reevaluation, the sexual offender shall be required to submit his or her written petition for reevaluation to the board within 30 days from the date of the letter notifying the sexual offender of his or her classification. The sexual offender shall have 60 days from the date of the notification letter to submit information as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section in support of the sexual offender’s petition for reevaluation. If the sexual offender fails to submit the petition or supporting documents within the time limits provided, the classification shall be final. The board shall notify the sexual offender by first-class mail of its decision on the petition for reevaluation of risk assessment classification and shall send a copy of such notification to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Corrections, the sheriff of the county where the sexual offender is registered, and the sentencing court, if applicable.”

“(c) A sexual offender who is classified by the board as a Level II risk assessment classification or as a sexually dangerous predator may file a petition for judicial review of his or her classification within 30 days of the date of the notification letter or, if the sexual offender has requested reevaluation pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section, within 30 days of the date of the letter denying the petition for reevaluation. The petition for judicial review shall name the board as defendant, and the petition shall be filed in the superior court of the county where the offices of the board are located. Within 30 days after service of the appeal on the board, the board shall submit a summary of its findings to the court and mail a copy, by first-class mail, to the sexual offender. The findings of the board shall be considered prima-facie evidence of the classification. The court shall also consider any relevant evidence submitted, and such evidence and documentation shall be mailed to the parties as well as submitted to the court. The court may hold a hearing to determine the issue of classification. The court may uphold the classification of the board, or, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the sexual offender is not placed in the appropriate classification level, the court shall place the sexual offender in the appropriate risk assessment classification. The court’s determination shall be forwarded by the clerk of the court to the board, the sexual offender, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the sheriff of the county where the sexual offender is registered.”

Section 11:
“(b)(1) A petition for release pursuant to this Code section shall be filed in the superior court of the jurisdiction in which the individual was convicted; provided, however, that if the individual was not convicted in this state, such petition shall be filed in the superior court of the county where the individual resides.

(2) Such petition shall be served on the district attorney and the sheriff of the county where the petition is filed. Service on the district attorney and sheriff may be had by mailing a copy of the petition with a proper certificate of service.
(3) If a petition for release is denied, another petition for release shall not be filed within a period of two years from the date of the final order on a previous petition.
(c)(1) An individual who meets the requirements of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be considered for release from registration requirements and from residency or employment restrictions.
(2) An individual who meets the requirements of paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of this Code section may be considered for release from registration requirements and from residency or employment restrictions only if:
(A) Ten years have elapsed since the individual completed all prison, parole, supervised release, and probation for the offense which required registration pursuant to Code Section 42-1-12; or
(B) The individual has been classified by the board as a Level I risk assessment classification, provided that if the board has not done a risk assessment classification for such individual, the court shall order such classification to be completed prior to considering the petition for release.”

“(e) The court shall hold a hearing on the petition if requested by the petitioner.

(f) The court may issue an order releasing the sexual offender from registration requirements or residency or employment restrictions, in whole or part, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual does not pose a substantial risk of perpetrating any future dangerous sexual offense. The court may release an individual from such requirements or restrictions for a specific period of time. The court shall send a copy of any order releasing a sexual offender from any requirements or restrictions to the sheriff and the district attorney of the jurisdiction where the petition is filed, to the Department of Corrections, and to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.“

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Note from Public Defender About Sex Crimes and Kids

Mar 17

Posted by constitutionalfights in Education, Mission, News / Blog Sites, Support, Why You Should Care | No Comments

freerangekids.wordpress.com: A Public Defender Discusses the Sex Offender Registry (& Why It’s Almost Worthless.

A NOTE FROM A PUBLIC DEFENDER ABOUT SEX CRIMES & KIDS

“Dear Free-Range Kids: I work as a public defender and will attest that the vast majority of sex offenders do not have a record (at least of sex offenses). Out of the 100+ serious sex offenses my office has handled during the last 5 years, only 3 have involved defendants already convicted of a sex offense in the past. Meaning that (a) sex offenders are not being re-convicted in large numbers, and (b) most sex offenses are committed by people who are not on any registry.

And this lack of recidivism has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of access due to registries. The average child molester is a master manipulator. He will be able to convince people that this was all a big mistake and get access to children without much trouble. And anyone who is going to abduct, rape and kill a child is going to be completely undeterred by a registry. It’s more likely a result of the fact that most on the registry are there for consensual sex with a slightly under-aged person (too underage and it becomes molestation regardless) and they are unlikely to re-offend. You also mix in people who commit sex crimes against adults who aren’t a threat to children – rape of an adult and rape of a child are VERY different and you almost never see a crossover. This leaves you with a very small number of registered sex offenders who are likely to re-offend, or likely to commit a crime against a child.

Sex registries have the dual effect of improperly stigmatizing people and lulling people into a false sense of security. Sure, dad can check out mom’s new boyfriend. But his being on a registry or not has absolutely no bearing whatsoever as to whether he poses a threat to a child. He could be a molester who has never been caught. He could be a public urination case that ended up on a registry. It seems as if the better choice would be to forget the registry all together and teach our children to protect themselves and keep the lines of communication open about sex so that they believe that they can come to us should something uncomfortable occur. — A Public Servant”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

IL: Rosin v. Monken

Mar 17

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges, News / Blog Sites | No Comments

Indianalawblog.com: Rosin v. Monken

The Illinois case is Rosin v. Monken, an 8-page opinion where Judge Cudahy writes:

After he was required to register as a sex offender in Illinois, Mitchell Rosin brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants failed to give full faith and credit to the March 27, 2003 judgment of a New York court. In that order, the court accepted a plea agreement that did not require Rosin to register as a sex offender in New York. He contends that Illinois is constitutionally required to give effect to the New York judgment and thus cannot, on the basis of that order, force him to register as a sex offender within its jurisdiction. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the registration requirement in the New York order was merely stricken, which left the order silent on the subject. Since the plea agreement did not purport to prevent any state other than New York from registering Rosin as a sex offender, and because any such provision would have been ineffective even if it had been included, we affirm.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

IL Tries to Ban Loitering of Sex Offenders Near Parks

Mar 17

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, News / Blog Sites, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

suburbanchicagonews.com: Proposed bill would restrict sex offenders

Sexual offenders would be banned from visiting or loitering near Illinois public parks, including state parks, under the provisions of legislation sponsored by state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Hinsdale, that is advancing through the Illinois General Assembly.

“Unfortunately, parks can be hard to patrol, making it hard to deter crime in these areas,” Dillard said. “However, hopefully by prohibiting sexual offenders from hanging around public parks, we reduce the number of people who are loitering in a potentially secluded environment where law enforcement officials aren’t likely to be.”

Child sex offenders are already prohibited from being in or loitering within 500 feet of a public park when children are present. Under Senate Bill 2824, convicted sexual predators and child sex offenders would be forbidden from being in or loitering within 500 feet of a public park.

Having been unanimously approved by the Illinois Senate, Senate Bill 2824 is now in the Illinois House for consideration.

Can you imagine how foolishly impossible it is to enforce such laws? Unless there is a well-known and recognized offender seen by a terrified neighbor, police would never be able to identify and enforce this ban in any park. This is not to mention the clear constitutional violations involved with banning citizens from public places, nor the statistical fact that over 90% of sex offenses against minors are committed by family or acquaintances of the victim

Synopsis As Introduced:
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is a Class 4 felony for any sex offender (rather than just a child sex offender) to knowingly be present in any public park building or on real property comprising any public park or to knowingly loiter on a public way within 500 feet of a public park building or real property comprising any public park.

Senate Sponsors:
Sen. Pamela J. Althoff - Iris Y. Martinez - Emil Jones, III, Antonio Muñoz, A. J. Wilhelmi, Toi W. Hutchinson, Kirk W. Dillard and Martin A. Sandoval

House Sponsors:
(Rep. Jack D. Franks )

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Sues Ohio For Right to Go Door To Door

Mar 16

Posted by constitutionalfights in Education, Legal / Official Info, Legal Challenges, Mission, Support, Why You Should Care | No Comments

courthousenews.com: Jehovah’s Witness Sex Offender Sues Ohio For Right to Go Door To Door.

Lawrence Bullard, a Jehovah’s Witness and a sex offender, is suing his parole officer and the Ohio Department of Corrections for his right to go door to door, stating that “the state is forcing him to choose between his faith and his freedom.”

Good for him. We hope he wins this lawsuit. More citizens should be suing the state over these laws and restrictions. We should be flooding the courts in every state and costing states millions of dollars in costs and restitution judgments.

Cincinnati - A Jehovah’s Witness who was convicted of felony attempted sexual abuse has sued the State of Ohio, claiming it unconstitutionally prohibits him from practicing his religion by proselytizing door-to-door more than once a month.

Lawrence Bullard says he should be allowed to proselytize door-to-door twice a week with other Witnesses, as their religion requires. He says he’s an exceedingly low risk to re-offend, and the circumstances prove it.

“On or about Dec. 16, 2001, after another break up, Lawrence went over to [his former fiancée's] house. He was angry at her, upset and confused. He let himself in when she was not home and hid in her closet waiting for her to come home.” When she arrived, he says, he “confronted her. And they argued. At some point, he forcibly kissed her and fell to the floor on top of her. He then put his hands down her pants, touching her pubic area.”

He says he “immediately realized that he made a serious mistake, in violation of both his faith and the law.” He says he called the police from the lobby of his ex’s apartment building, and waited there until they arrested him. After pleading guilty to the class E felony, Bullard says he was classified as a low risk, and sentenced to 10 years of probation and ordered to register as a sex offender.

In 2008, “because of his trouble-free adjustment to probation, he says, he “was placed on non-reporting status.”

Bullard, 37, says he has been married for 4 years. He says his religious practice of going door-to-door twice a week with Witnesses made him well-suited for a job in sales, which he eventually found with a roofing company. But when his parole officer in Ohio found out about his religious practices and his job as a door-to-door salesman, Bullard says, she forbade it. She asked him to sign a document agreeing not to go door to door, but he refused, citing his religion. Ohio then “requested a warrant for his arrest from New York.”

He says the request was ultimately withdrawn, and the Ohio Department of Parole allowed him to proselytize once a month. Bullard says his religion requires him to do it twice a week, and that he’s no risk because he will be accompanied by other Witnesses. He seeks a restraining order and injunction. He is represented by David Singleton with the Ohio Justice & Policy Center.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WY Legislators Want Sex Offender Restrictions

Mar 16

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, News / Blog Sites, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

sheridanmedia.com: Wyoming State Legislators Address Juvenlile Justice and Sex Offender Issues.

Registered sex offenders in Wyoming couldn’t move into residences close to schools under a bill advancing in the state House of Representatives. The House gave preliminary approval Friday to House Bill 83, sponsored by Representative Steve Harshman, a Republican from Casper. His bill would bar offenders from moving into residences within 2,000 feet - or roughly a third of a mile - of schools that teach students age 18 or younger.

Some other lawmakers said the restrictions would leave offenders no place to live in smaller towns. ACLU state Executive Director Linda Burt notes that Wyoming last year cut funding for sex offender treatment programs in the prison system. She says treating offenders does more to protect children than imposing residency restrictions.

View Bill in PDF format. Summary of House Bill 83 is available here.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Cuts off GPS Tracking Device, Disappears

Mar 16

Posted by constitutionalfights in Education, News / Blog Sites, Why You Should Care | No Comments

kare11.com(ND):Sex Offender Cuts off GPS Tracking Device, Disappears.

Police in Fargo are scrambling to find a high-level sex offender they say cut off his GPS monitoring device Monday, then disappeared.

Once again: GPS monitoring does not prevent crime!
This has always been a bogus notion to monitor sex offenders.
If someone wants to commit a crime, they will do so. Period.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

CA Supreme Court: Sex Offender May Petition for Removal From Registry

Mar 16

Posted by constitutionalfights in Constitution, Education, Legal / Official Info, News / Blog Sites, Why You Should Care | No Comments

metnews.com(Calif): Supreme Court: Sex Offender May Petition for Removal From Registry.

A person seeking to be removed from the sex offender registry based on a 2006 state Supreme Court ruling may seek that relief by writ petition, but not by post-judgment motion, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In a unanimous decision, the justices affirmed a Third District Court of Appeals ruling that a trial court has no jurisdiction to grant a motion to remove the lifetime sex offender registration requirement. But the high court expressly stated that a defendant seeking such relief may do so by petition for writ of mandate if he is no longer in custody and his appeals have been exhausted.

Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, writing for the high court, said the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed former high school teacher Andrew Picklesimer’s appeal from the denial of his motion. She agreed that the trial judge was correct in ruling that he lacked jurisdiction because the defendant’s conviction became final long before the motion was filed.

Picklesimer has been subject to sex offender registration since 1993, when he entered into a plea bargain in Trinity Superior Court. Originally charged with offenses against two minors, he pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse, oral copulation, and digital penetration, all involving a 17-year-old girl.

Picklesimer raised only one issue on appeal, arguing that the separate sentences violated Penal Code Sec. 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same crime. The Court of Appeal disagreed, affirming in an unpublished opinion.

Years later, the state Supreme Court decided People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, holding that mandating sex offender registration for all defendants convicted of oral copulation of a minor over the age of 16 was unconstitutional as a matter of equal protection because the crime is similar to unlawful sexual intercourse, as to which the trial court has discretion as to whether to require registration.

To remedy the violation, the high court declared that judges have discretion as to whether to require registration for those convicted of oral copulation.

The case is People v. Picklesimer,10 S.O.S. 1328 (.doc file). Download decision here.

Excerpt:
“In People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185, 1207 (Hofsheier), we concluded imposition of mandatory lifetime sex offender registration on defendants convicted of violations of Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) for voluntary oral copulation with a 16- or 17-year-old minor violated the state and federal equal protection clauses. Our decision resulted in the creation of a class of people, those convicted of violating section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) on or before the date of our decision, who potentially might be entitled to relief from mandatory lifetime registration but for whom the precise procedural method of asserting such a claim for relief was uncertain. We resolve that uncertainty here.”

“We conclude that for those like defendant Andrew Nelson Picklesimer, who are no longer in custody and whose appeals are final, claims for Hofsheier relief — relief from mandatory lifetime sex offender registration based on equal protection — must be brought by way of a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court. A freestanding postjudgment motion for Hofsheier relief, such as the one Picklesimer filed, is not cognizable, as the trial court and Court of Appeal correctly concluded.”

“A court may in its discretion treat such a postjudgment motion as a mislabeled petition for writ of mandate. In this case, however, for us to do so is not appropriate. This is because defendants who assert a claim for Hofsheier relief and establish a right to relief from mandatory sex offender registration may still be subject to discretionary registration under section 290.006, and the record before us does not conclusively establish that Picklesimer is exempt from discretionary registration and thus entitled to relief.
Accordingly, we affirm, without prejudice to Picklesimer’s ability to file a petition for writ of mandate in the trial court seeking Hofsheier relief.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GA: Another Cop Accused Of Child Molestation

Mar 15

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, News / Blog Sites, What You Must Do, Why You Should Care | No Comments

wsbtv.com(GA): Cop Accused Of Child Molestation.

We have lost count of how many police officers have been arrested for sex crimes against children just since the beginning of this year alone. Remember that these are the same men who speak out against the heinous nature of sex offenses in our neighborhoods and do everything they can to cause pain and destruction to anyone even accused of a sex crime. In many cases, they communicate the nature of a sex offender’s arrest to other inmates in jails and prisons in order to cause the accused sex offender to be harmed while in custody. But being a police officer, it is likely that he will be kept protected while incarcerated. And as police officers, enjoying favorability with courts, it is also likely that these men will not be required to register as sex offenders.

Fayette County, Ga. — A Tyrone police officer was arrested, accused of child molestation. Matthew New, 38, of Fayetteville was arrested March 11 by the Fayetteville Police Department on a charge involving child molestation. Mr. New faces at least 40 additional charges on related crimes, investigators said.

According to investigators, more than one child was victimized. The children were under age 16 at the time of the incidents, investigators said, and one of the children was related to Mr. New.

Information from the investigation has resulted in 40 additional charges and of those, New will be charged with one count of sexual battery and multiple counts of enticing a child for indecent purposes and multiple counts of child pornography, investigators said. Mr. New’s computer was seized during the investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, investigators said.

Officials said Mr. New was placed on administrative leave from the Tyrone Police Department immediately when the agency was notified of the investigation by Fayetteville police on Feb. 2. New had been with the Tyrone Police Department for about nine years, according to police officials.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

MD House Approves Numerous Sex Offender Bills

Mar 15

Posted by constitutionalfights in Contact Officials, Education, Legal / Official Info, News / Blog Sites, What You Must Do | No Comments

examiner.com(Maryland): MD House committee approves mixed bag of child sex offender laws, politics a factor.

The House Judiciary Committee approved a slate of sex offender bills late Friday. The raft of bills appear to be a mixed bag when it comes to enhancing Maryland’s sex offender laws, some good, others mere political window dressing for the 2010 election.

Governor O’Malley got the political window dressing he desired in the form of HB 473 a bill filed on his request that ostensibly requires lifetime monitoring of serious child sex offenders. However, the bill allows offenders the ability to petition for release from lifetime monitoring after three years. The committee amended that period to five years—a distinction with no real difference given the nature of child sex offenders. Smigiel said labeling the bill as lifetime supervision intentionally misleads the public. “There is no reason to call it lifetime supervision,” Smigiel said. “It’s simply semantics.”

Other measures approved by the committee include a juvenile offender database accessible by law enforcement only, changing legislative language to mandate state agencies post identifying information about offenders, and expanding the definition of an offender to include decent exposure and possession of child pornography.

To view the bills not mentioned in our post, see the original news article. We are not contending sentencing bills. We only oppose the unconstitutional application of sex offender registries.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,