This has got to be unconstitutional, someone has to take this to court! ACLU where are you?5-17-17 Missouri:
ST. LOUIS • A sex offender from St. Charles County thought he had moved on with his life after successfully completing five years of probation for sending webcam photographs of his genitals to an undercover police officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.
Now he’s among hundreds of people in Missouri who are learning they must attach GPS monitoring systems to their ankles for life, even though such a requirement wasn’t part of their sentencing agreement.
The devices send out alerts if an offender lingers near a school or a park. Cut the wide black strap and the waterproof device will tell on them.
It beeps to prompt a verbal command from state officials, say to make a payment or report to probation officers immediately.
The retroactive requirements are part of a revised state criminal code that went into effect Jan. 1. Offenders either found guilty or who pleaded guilty to 13 various sex crimes in question based on an act committed on or after Aug. 28, 2006, are subject to the added security measures. Previously, the monitoring technology was used for a more limited class of high-risk offenders.
The St. Charles man is among several sex offenders who are suing and challenging the state. In the lawsuit, in which he is named only as D.G., the 40-year-old argues that the law didn’t exist when he pleaded guilty. He claims he’s no longer “legally subject” to the jurisdiction of state prison authorities.
He argues that he shouldn’t be required to pay monthly supervision fees for decades, nor have travel or residency restricted for life.
“I don’t think a lawyer can make a straight-faced argument that it’s constitutional,” said Clayton-based attorney Matt Fry, who is suing the state on behalf of D.G. and has many other plaintiffs in the wings.
A March 29 “Dear Sir/Madam” letter from chief state supervisor Julie Kempker lays out the law, including threat of a class D felony if conditions are violated.
“We understand that this change may be unexpected,” Kempker said in the letter. “Rather than being detracted by the lifetime supervision requirements, you are encouraged to remain focused on your daily supervision responsibilities and to do those things that improve your life and positively impact your family and the community in which you live.”
Many sex offenders panicked and started calling lawyers. Some are confused: for instance, those no longer on supervision who moved away from Missouri. ..Continued.. by Jessee Bogan
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks