How to Register a Drone

See also: Less than a third of holiday drones sold have been registered according to FAA

1-18-16 National:

The days of flying your drone through the sky moments after ripping it from the box, completely carefree and beyond the reach of Big Brother are coming to an end.

Drones have become one of the hottest new technologies, part toy, part tool—they were one of the hottest holiday gifts this year, and garnered plenty of coverage at CES. Their growing numbers, not to mention more than a few near-misses with commercial aircraft and even firefighters, prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to declare last month that consumer UAVs must be registered.

Owners have until February 19 to get with the program. Will government regulation of drones hurt their popularity? Will a $5 fee take some of the UAVs magic away? (Pro tip: Register before January 21 and it’s free!) Those are valid questions. But first, let’s talk about just who needs to register, and how.

The New Rules

If your drone weighs less than 0.55 pounds, you don’t need to register it. (You can find a list of drones that do and don’t require registration here.) There are a few more specifics, though, worth noting: ..Continued.. by Wired

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Lawyer challenges Pasco predator ordinance

UPDATE: Pasco asks court to dismiss sex predator’s lawsuit over residency

12-30-15 Florida:

LUTZ — Instead of enjoying Christmas surrounded by his family in the Lutz home where he grew up, Earl Reyes Villagomeza passed the holidays alone in a cheap hotel room near the Florida State Fairgrounds.

Some would argue that’s exactly what a convicted child predator deserves — a lonely, isolated existence.

Tampa lawyer Patrick LeDuc, however, contends Villagomeza has paid for his crimes and deserves to go home.

He has filed a lawsuit against Pasco County, asserting the county’s sexual offender and sexual predator ordinance, passed by the county commission in April, is unconstitutional, calling the ordinance “unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and punitive.”

At the Dec. 15 Pasco County Commission meeting, the commission OK’d the county attorney’s request to defend the county against the lawsuit. Assistant County Attorney Kristi Sims will represent Pasco County.

But LeDuc believes the county is poised to spend a large hunk of taxpayer money on a defense it can’t win.

“They aren’t doing their taxpayers any favors. The Pasco County Commission is attempting to violate the constitutional rights of convicted sexual predators by making it impossible for them to live in Pasco County,” he said.

“I get it. Sex offenders are horrid people; the scum of the Earth,” said LeDuc. “But these types of laws really begin to go to a dark place. They’re trying to build a Chinese wall around Pasco County to keep these people out.”

❖ ❖ ❖

Florida’s Sexual Predator Act, passed in 1998, already prohibits convicted sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, child-care centers, parks, playgrounds and other places where children gather.

But the Pasco County Commission, at the urging of County Commissioner Mike Moore and Sheriff Chris Nocco, unanimously passed its own ordinance, increasing the buffer to 2,500 feet, or about half a mile.

The Pasco ordinance also makes it illegal for registered sex offenders to give out candy on Halloween and establishes safety zones that make it illegal for them to be within 300 feet of school bus stops, public pools, skating rinks, Boys & Girls Clubs and other child-centered facilities.

Nocco said the new rules are needed to protect children against vicious predators.

“We’re not talking about Romeos and Juliets here,” he said. “These crimes are the worst of the worst.”

Hillsborough County sheriff’s deputies arrested Villagomeza, 31, on Sept. 18, 2014, and charged him with three counts of lewd or lascivious molestation of a child age 12 to 15.

“He was accused of inappropriately touching over clothes,” said LeDuc.

His first offense, Villagomeza pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd or lascivious molestation. Instead of receiving jail time, he was sentenced to two years of community control followed by eight years of sex offender probation.

But LeDuc said the punishment being imposed on Villagomeza by Pasco County goes way beyond community control.

“He has to wear a Scarlet A for the rest of his life,” said LeDuc, referring to Nathaniel Hawthorne’s historical novel, “The Scarlet Letter,” in which a woman accused of adultery is forced to wear a scarlet letter A on her dress.

Villagomeza has lived at his parents’ home on Dockside Drive in Lutz since he was 3 years old, said LeDuc. Under the state’s sexual predator law, he still would be allowed to live there.

But Villagomeza is the first registered sex offender to fall under the county’s new residency restrictions. The 907 registered sex offenders living in Pasco prior to enactment of the ordinance are subject to the state’s less-restrictive statute, said LeDuc.

However, he foresees many more civil rights complaints against the county as convicted sex offenders are released from prison and attempt to return to their lives in Pasco County.

“If I were Hillsborough and Pinellas counties, I’d be very concerned,” he said. “This ordinance is going to force registered sex offenders to relocate to surrounding counties that fall under the state’s less-restrictive residency requirements.”

❖ ❖ ❖

In his 43-page complaint against Pasco County filed Oct. 8 in Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, LeDuc details how it is impossible for Villagomeza to step foot in Pasco County without violating the county ordinance.

“Pasco includes home-schools. There are 1,200 home schools in Pasco County,” said LeDuc. “Offenders have to be 300 feet from a school bus stop. There are 4,400 bus stops in Pasco County. They have a list of 27 places these offenders aren’t allowed to go, including public and private parks, libraries, zoos, public beaches, game centers, carnivals and businesses where children gather.”

LeDuc said the ordinance doesn’t specify which businesses are off limits, so it is left up to the discretion of law enforcement.

“Target and Wal-Mart stores have toy departments where kids gather,” noted LeDuc. “Are they included? Under these restrictions, the only alternative for a registered predator is to pitch a tent in the Green Swamp.”

LeDuc believes the intent of Pasco’s ordinance is clear.

“They don’t want sex offenders in Pasco County,” he said. “If any county commissioner says otherwise, I’d call him a liar.”

Moore isn’t refuting the intent of the ordinance.

“We want to make it as difficult as possible to return or relocate back to Pasco to commit what, to me, are pretty sick crimes,” said Moore when he first proposed the ordinance in December 2014. “Quite a few municipalities (in Florida) have done similar things.

Miami-Dade County passed a more restrictive ordinance in 2010, and Lake County followed suit in 2012. Both counties now face legal challenges.

The city of Jacksonville’s ordinance was struck down by a Duval County court in 2007. The court concluded the city cannot pass an ordinance that preempts a state statute.

“Every court that’s dealt with this issue has concluded these statutes are unconstitutional,” said LeDuc. “Pasco County is going to lose huge.”

In the meantime, on Tuesday LeDuc filed an emergency motion for a temporary injunction to allow Villagomeza to return home until the lawsuit is resolved. A hearing on the motion tentatively is scheduled for Jan. 6.

“Yes, these guys have done terrible things and deserve to be punished,” said LeDuc. “But at what point do they find redemption? Whatever happened to the Judeo-Christian doctrine of grace and forgiveness?”

Assistant County Attorney Kristi Sims was unavailable for comment. ..Source.. by D’ANN LAWRENCE WHITE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Secret apps and what parents can do to protect teens

11-19-15 Colorado, National:

DENVER — Sexting in schools is a growing problem, even with kids as young as fourth and fifth grades. Sure, you know about Snapchat and Instagram. What about Kik and AskFm? How about Omegle? And now, there are other apps out there to hide those apps.

Authorities are worried. It’s not just sharing inappropriate pictures and messages, but all of this is opening up our kids to becoming victims of sexual predators.

The Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office has one of the leading programs in the country to not only take down predators, but also to educate kids and parents about the dangers. Mike Harris has been the leader of “The Cheezo Unit” since 1996. His team has arrested 853 predators. This year, they have already arrested 52 people.

We paid them a visit and were surprised at how quickly someone can get in trouble online. Harris was showing us an app called “Omegle” where users are anonymous. Child predators use the site to gather information on children. Within seconds, Harris, posing as a 14-year-old girl, was approached by a 45-year-old man. Within minutes, the suspect was asking to meet for sex. Harris said, “He is asking me what I like to keep secrets about.”

It’s not just apps, it’s online, in games, and in real life.

We met a 14-year-old girl who met a boy on Xbox Live. The boy claimed to be 11 years old. The girl got suspicious when he asked her to meet.

She said, “He didn`t want me to tell my parents. He said don`t tell your parents, they don`t need to find out, it`s just between you and me. That`s when I was like, ‘oh no, this is not good, what do I do?’ At that time, I didn`t know who to ask for help, at that time, I was too afraid to ask my parents, I was afraid they would be angry with me.” ..Continued.. by Deborah Takahara

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Suit alleges California database violates law, prompted attacks

See earlier story: Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website

11-16-15 California:

An advocacy group is challenging California in a controversial lawsuit over a public sex offender database, claiming the state’s inaction has led to the fatal attacks of four individuals.

The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 10 by a pair of registered sex offenders and the advocacy group California Reform Sex Offender Laws, alleges that Attorney General Kamala Harris and the state’s Department of Justice have repeatedly failed to adequately update a website established to publish the names and locations of offenders, in violation of state and federal law. Now, they’re asking that a judge compel the state to fully revise the site, or shut down the database until the changes can be made.

The complaint charges that roughly 92 percent of offender profiles on the site “lack either the year of conviction or the year of release, or both, among other errors and omissions,” even though the department already has the necessary information to update the profiles.

The suit claims that the incomplete profiles prompted attacks on offenders by providing their exact locations without accurate information about the nature and recency of their convictions. It also argues the deficiency is in violation of a 2006 state law that stipulated that the site be completely updated by 2010. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that the department is violating federal law by accepting federal funds to overhaul the database and then failing to do so.

The suit also claims that the department has “expended substantial taxpayer funds to modify and change the format of the website in trivial ways” yet still failed to address the outdated offender information.

“The real irony or the stupidity or extreme sadness of the situation is they have the information,” Janice Bellucci, president of the advocacy group, told StateScoop. “For whatever reason, one part of the agency can’t seem to communicate that information to the other part, which, quite frankly, is not our problem. Except they’ve made it our problem.”

Bellucci noted that her group wrote a letter to the department about these issues back in October 2013 and engaged in “informal talks” with state workers, but those efforts ultimately led nowhere.

“They never even bothered to reply to our letter,” Bellucci said. “At that point they were three years late, now they’re five years late, and it was just the time to take action.”

A department spokeswoman didn’t return multiple requests for comment on the suit’s claims.

As evidence of the detrimental effects of the website’s “incomplete and erroneous” information on offenders, the suit cites the cases of seven different people attacked based on their profiles on the database, including the two plaintiffs. The complaints includes descriptions of one offender who was killed after he was “stabbed 58 times” and another who died after he “was attacked by a stranger lying in wait who stabbed him more than 70 times.” The suit alleges that a lack of information about their release dates were factors in seven attacks, including four that were fatal.

Roy Matagora and Frank Lindsay, the plaintiffs in the suit, charge that they’ve not only been attacked as result of similar incomplete information on their profiles, but that it’s also made it incredibly difficult for them to find housing or employment.

Mark McBride, a defense attorney and certified criminal law specialist in California, believes the approach of drawing a direct line between the attacks and the database is a unique one.

“I don’t see them asking for any money, which makes it unique,” McBride said. “You have people taking a principled approach who are considered sex offenders.”

He questioned whether there was enough evidence for the complaint to hold, suggesting the state would likely argue, ” ‘Even if we didn’t do it correctly, we didn’t know it would lead to vigilantism.’”

Beyond the question of connecting vigilante violence to the site’s deficiencies, McBride said the suit’s claims present an “interesting double jeopardy” conundrum for the court to consider.

“These people have served hard time, and then their punishment continues,” McBride said. “They’re functionally banished from our society. We lock them up, and then when they get out, apparently that’s not good enough.”

Bellucci hopes to see the situation resolved as quickly possible for that exact reason. While the filing of the suit could spur the department into action, she expects not to see any results until a judge weighs in.

“They’ve haven’t been doing what they should be doing for so long that it’s hard to be optimistic that they’re going to, all of a sudden, wake up and say ‘Wow, we should do the right thing,’” Bellucci said. ..Source.. by Alex Koma

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Mandates Are Constitutional

Earlier story: Man fights designation as a sexual offender
NOTE: I would hope this case would goto the U.S. Sup Ct..

11-12-15 Ohio:

State law requires convicted sex offenders to register and to verify their addresses periodically with authorities. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled today that those requirements for certain offenders do not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

The obligations for Tier II sex offenders “are not so extreme as to be grossly disproportionate to the crime or shocking to a reasonable person and to the community’s sense of justice,” Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger wrote in the Court’s lead opinion, concluding that the requirements violate neither the U.S Constitution nor the Ohio Constitution.

The decision affirmed the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals.

Young Man Must Report to Authorities for 25 Years

Travis Blankenship, 21, and a 15-year-old girl identified as M.H. started talking online in 2011 through the social media site PhoneZoo.com. During one conversation, they shared their ages. The two met and became involved sexually. M.H. stated that their sexual relationship was consensual.

Blankenship was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor between 13 and 16 years old. He pled guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to five years of community control with conditions that included six months in jail. The court released Blankenship after he served 12 days.

In addition, he was categorized as a Tier II sex offender/child-victim offender as mandated by state law. The designation required him to register in person with the sheriffs in the counties where he lives, works, and attends school. He also must verify his home address, place of employment, and school location in person every 180 days for 25 years.

Blankenship appealed, and the Second District determined that the sex-offender requirements of his sentence did not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. ..Continued.. by Kathleen Maloney

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Registrants sue CA DOJ — Demand improvements to, or end of, Megan's Law Website

There is more to this story: See Lawsuit: California breaks the law on sex offender website

11-10-15 California:

California Reform Sex Offender Laws (CA RSOL) and two registrants today will file a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court requesting immediate changes to, or in the alternative, the ending of, the state’s Megan’s Law website. The request is based upon the failure of the California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) to comply with a state law that required the agency to add conviction and release dates to individuals’ profiles on that website by 2010.

“The California Department of Justice continues to act illegally and in violation of state law,” stated CA RSOL president and attorney Janice Bellucci. “The agency has failed to meet a legislative mandate to correct the Megan’s Law website and that failure has resulted in several deaths as well as homelessness and unemployment for thousands of California residents.”

Roy Matagora, a plaintiff in the case, is one person who has suffered and continues to suffer due to the agency’s failure to comply with state law. Matagora is a recent victim of vigilante violence who was shot twice on September 21 by a neighbor who told police that he shot Matagora because he is a “sex offender”. The Megan’s Law website profile of Matagora lacks both the date of his conviction and the date of his release.

“The combination of an individual’s current photo and home address as well a lack of information regarding when he was convicted can be lethal,” stated attorney Chance Oberstein. “Unfortunately, the public often jumps to the conclusion that the conviction took place recently even though it may have occurred decades ago.”

About 92 percent of the profiles on the Megan’s Law website lack the year of conviction and year of release, according to the lawsuit. In fact, the older the conviction is, the less likely it is that the date of conviction appears on an individual’s profile.

“California DOJ is acting unlawfully and irresponsibly,” stated Bellucci. “They have put, and continue to put, at risk of significant harm, the lives of more than 50,000 individuals. The lack of this information disguises the fact that these individuals are unlikely to commit a subsequent offense. According to the Outcome Evaluation Report released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in July 2015, the rate of re-offense is less than one percent.”[1]

And according to Dr. Karl Hanson, a renowned international expert regarding the re-offense rate of registrants, a registrant who has not committed a subsequent offense in 17 years is no more likely to commit an offense than an individual who has never done so.[2]

[1] See CDCR Outcome Evaluation Report, page 30.
[2] See California Sex Offender Management Board report, “A Better Path to Community Safety”, dated April 2014, page 16. ..Source.. by CARSOL

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided, a question that divides the courts of appeals.

11-8-15 Washington DC:

See also: U.S. Supreme Court will hear Kansas sex offender case

UPDATE 11-13-15: A vey interesting question, the answer is NO (U.S. v Lundsford), they do not have to update their former jurisdiction with their new address in a foreign country. ex: Suppose someone moved to Germany (a foreign country, but not a Jurisdiction defined in SORNA), study the following current wording of SORNA.

16913(a) IN GENERAL.—A sex offender shall register, and keep the registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the offender is a student. For initial registration purposes only, a sex offender shall also register in the jurisdiction in which convicted if such jurisdiction is different from the jurisdiction of residence.

16911(10) JURISDICTION.—The term ‘‘jurisdiction’’ means any of the following: (A) A State. (B) The District of Columbia. (C) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. (D) Guam. (E) American Samoa. (F) The Northern Mariana Islands. (G) The United States Virgin Islands. (H) To the extent provided and subject to the requirements of section 127, a federally recognized Indian tribe.

CASE: Nichols v. United States

ISSUE: Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided, a question that divides the courts of appeals.

Docket No.: 15-5238

Op. Below: 10th Cir.

..Source.. SCOTUS Blog

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

'Ghost app' used by students in sexting investigation

Learn how to find these GHOST Apps on Smartphones.

11-7-15 Colorado, National:

KUSA – The Cañon City sexting incident that caused a cancellation of a football game is still being investigated.

Cañon City High School offices said students involved used what is considered a "ghost" or "hidden" app to disguise their files.

One apps look like a calculator, for instance, but if a passcode is typed in, it opens up to a hidden menu with content.

Mike Harris investigates internet child sex crimes for the 1st Judicial District that includes Jefferson County. He showed the 9NEWS crew a free app.

"Ghost apps, hidden apps they're everywhere and the kids know about them," Harris said.

"We've been hearing about these for probably five plus years now. The problem is parents are giving their kids smart phones, iPads, and if their kids don't know about ghost apps, or hidden apps, their friends do and they can tell them how to go about putting them on. And then we as parents, even if we try to be vigilant, check our kids' technology devices, we're not going to see them there."

Harris said he's heard the "not my kid" line from parents too many times.

"This one father in particular, he wept so hard, thought he was a failure because he just could not believe his 12-year-old daughter would be sending out inappropriate naked pictures of herself. I told him, 'you're not a failure, our environment is failing our children, not just from us as parents, but our environment as a whole.'"

Harris teaches parents many things, including sexting and how to be smarter than your kid, or at least just as smart.

"We suggest that parents put on parental controls," Harris said. "If your kids needs an app, or wants an app, you find out what does that app do, why do you want this?"

If you agree with it, then you put in the parent passcode. The kid doesn't know it and then you allow them to download that app. You take back more of the control instead of just giving them these devices."

The 1st Judicial District DA's Office provided a how to manual for parents, with instructions how to see or remove apps from kids' phones. View the manual here or below.

"If you don't know and you want to start over, just hit reset on their technology device and start all over," Harris said. ..Source.. by Anastasiya Bolton, KUSA

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

US Supreme Court will decide whether sex offenders must update status after moving overseas

See also: SCOTUS to Decide Reach of Sex Offender Registry

11-6-15 Washington DC:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will decide whether convicted sex offenders must update their status on the federal sex offender registry after moving to a foreign country.

The justices agreed Friday to resolve a split among lower courts that reached different outcomes in the cases of two men — one who lived in Kansas City, Kansas, and another who lived in Kansas City, Missouri.

The court will hear an appeal from Lester Nichols, a Kansas man who moved to the Philippines after his release from prison in 2012 without updating his registration. A federal appeals court in Denver upheld his conviction for violating the law.

But a federal appeals court in St. Louis said a convicted sex offender from Missouri did not have to register after he also moved to the Philippines. ..Source.. by U.S. News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge again blocks new R.I. sex offender residency restriction

UPDATED 11-9: Critics of new residency law say it’s dangerous to remove sex offenders from stable living situations

11-4-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal judge has blocked until January enforcement of a Rhode Island law that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. on Wednesday ordered the state not to enforce the law until a hearing in January.

McConnell last week had issued a temporary restraining order for 10 days.

The law was enacted this year and applies to Level III sex offenders, considered the most likely to reoffend.

The state's affiliate to the American Civil Liberties Union had requested the temporary restraining order, and after the hearing Steven Brown, the executive director, said the ruling would give Level III sex offenders and their families "a great sense of relief."

Attorneys John E. MacDonald and Lynette Labinger argued for the restraining order, stating the law was not being implemented the same way everywhere — with sex offenders in some communities having 36 hours to move and in others 30 days — and that many would have to move to Harrington Hall, an all-male homeless shelter in Cranston.

Rebecca Partington of the attorney general's office pointed out in court that the 1,000 foot zone would give parents peace of mind and that zones, such as the proximity of liquor stores to schools, have been set in the past.

The temporary restraining order had barred the attorney general's office and the Department of Correction from enforcing the law.

The restraining order was issued in conjunction with a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU asserting, among other things, that the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process and retroactively punishes those who already completed their sentences.

The state argued similar restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and those affected can find other places to live. ..Source.. by Providence Journal

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

The Fate Of This Sex Offender May Lie In The Hands Of Justice Scalia

UPDATED 11-6: Scalia Sticks Up for a Child Pornography Convict

11-3-15 Washington DC:

The justice's hard-line approach to interpreting criminal law may spare a man from a 10-year sentence.

WASHINGTON -- A man convicted of possessing child pornography wants the Supreme Court to read his offense under federal law narrowly -- and in the process, to give him a break from a very long prison sentence.

Whether he's successful may depend on the voice and vote of Justice Antonin Scalia.

On Tuesday, the justices heard arguments in Lockhart v. United States, a case stemming from a sting operation where the defendant, Avondale Lockhart, ended up arrested and charged for attempting to receive and possess child pornography.

The dispute actually involves a rather straightforward issue of statutory interpretation -- an area where Scalia is often a leading voice -- but Congress wasn't so straightforward when it wrote the law that Lockhart is challenging.

At issue in the case is whether that law, which only applies at the sentencing stage, allows the government to seek a 10-year term of incarceration for Lockhart, rather the roughly six to eight years he would receive if the confusing statute didn’t apply.

Lockhart's troubles began in 2008, when federal agents found out he had wired money to Russia for the purpose of purchasing child pornography. Based on that tip, the agents, in partnership with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, sent a letter to Lockhart luring him to a fake website where he purportedly would be able to buy more child pornography.

Lockhart took the bait and purchased six videos. But upon delivery of his order, the couriers -- who happened to be undercover agents -- surprised him with the package and a search warrant, which they used to rummage through his laptop and an external hard drive. There, they found more than 15,000 images and nine videos depicting sexually explicit acts involving minors.

Based on that discovery, Lockhart was indicted and later convicted in New York for possession of child pornography. The case could’ve ended there, but when it was time for sentencing, prosecutors pushed for a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years -- even though Lockhart's crime called for a significantly lower penalty.

Why the disparity? Relying on an ambiguous provision of federal law that enhances sentences for repeat offenders, prosecutors sought to punish Lockhart more harshly because he had a decade-old conviction in his record for sexual abuse. The victim in that case, though, wasn't a minor, but Lockhart's 53-year-old girlfriend, and he had only been given probation for the conviction.

That was good enough for the U.S. government, which on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that Lockhart deserved that enhanced 10-year sentence because of his prior offense against his girlfriend, even though it bears no relation to his latest conviction for child pornography.

Lockhart's lawyer, federal public defender Edward Zas, countered that the ambiguous statute doesn’t cover his client for the simple reason that Congress enacted it “to protect children, and to punish and deter those who would harm them.”

Scalia seemed more convinced by Lockhart than by his opponent. Invoking the so-called “rule of lenity,” he reminded the government that judges must side with a criminal defendant and err on the side of leniency if a criminal statute is hazy with respect to the conduct it prohibits.

“When the government sends somebody to jail for 10 years, it must turn sharp corners,” Scalia said. “It has to dot every I and cross every T. It must be clear.”

That’s particularly true when Congress does a shoddy job at writing a criminal statute.

"We give them a 'D' for their drafting of this statute," said Justice Samuel Alito.

Agreeing with Alito, Lockhart's lawyer said the law was "not a model of the drafter's art by any means."

Child pornography or not, it would offend basic notions of fairness and due process if the federal government were allowed to rely on a poorly drafted law to send people away for a very long time.

Here’s where Scalia comes in.

Applying a similar principle, he convinced a majority of his colleagues in June to strike as unconstitutional a hopelessly ambiguous law that over the years subjected thousands of federal offenders to unduly lengthy sentences. It didn’t matter to Scalia that a good chunk of those offenders weren’t the most sympathetic; it sufficed that the law was simply too vague to survive in the books.

Lockhart is not looking to strike any laws, but simply arguing that the law that punishes repeat child-porn offenders more severely doesn’t apply to him. He may not be the most sympathetic defendant -- he faces a long prison sentence -- but criminal law has nothing to do with likability; it either applies to you or it doesn’t.

A decision in Lockhart v. United States is expected sometime between now and June. If the court finds in Lockhart's favor, he could become eligible for a lower sentence. He is currently due to be released in 2021. ..Source.. by Cristian Farias

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Law barring sex offenders near schools temporarily blocked

UPDATED 11-3: Court puts hold on sex offender residency; ACLU seeks to kill law

10-31-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - A federal judge has temporarily blocked Rhode Island from enforcing a law that bars certain sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell on Friday issued a temporary restraining order for 10 days, granting a request by the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The law was enacted this year and applies to Level 3 sex offenders, considered the most likely to reoffend.

The ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against the state this week. It says the law is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process, retroactively punishes those who already completed their sentences and interferes with privacy interests without a legitimate purpose.

The state argued similar restrictions have been imposed elsewhere, and those affected can find other places to live. ..Source.. by ABC6News

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU sues to stop new sex offender residency law

UPDATED 10-30: Judge to hear ACLU challenge to sex offender residency law

10-29-15 Rhode Island:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — The new law forbidding Level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school in Rhode Island is not constitutional, the Rhode Island ACLU said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Providence.

The law is vague, violates due process, punishes people retroactively even when they’ve completed sentences, and interferes with “liberty and privacy interests while bearing no rational relationship to a legitimate purpose,” the ACLU’s Johanna Kaiser said.

Six people are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. One of them was given 36 hours to move; and has been forced to stay at hotels since then. Others have been unable to secure new housing in the short time they’ve been given. Most of them, the ACLU said, will be forced to move into a homeless shelter, the Harrington Hall facility in Cranston — the only homeless shelter in the state accepting sex offenders that is not within 1,000 feet of a school.

How does one measure that thousand feet distance? How does one appeal an order from law enforcement? And how do you define a school — determining which facilities should be considered a concern? All these issues are not addressed in the new law, the ACLU said.

It also says it applies to all Level 3 sex offenders even if their crime was committed against an adult.

Providence Journal: Law could backfire ( http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151003/NEWS/151009727 )

Several local homeless advocacy groups support the ACLU’s lawsuit, including the Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. By limiting where people can live, the law encourages homelessness, the ACLU said — and rehabilitation and treatment is disrupted; and the law decreases public safety, rather than increasing it.

Level 3 sex offenders are determined to be more likely to reoffend and more dangerous to the public. Level 2 offenders are moderate risk, and level 1 offenders are not listed in public registries. ..Source.. by Bill Tomison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ALERT: A Former Sex Offender's Case Has Been Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

UPDATED 12-16-15: Court refuses to hear case! Petition DENIED

9-11-15 Washington DC, North Carolina:

A case from North Carolina has been appealed to the high court.

David Paul Hall, Petitioner v. North Carolina

Case no: 15-57 Docket

The state on 7-21 filed a "Waiver of right of respondent North Carolina to respond filed." and the high court on 9-9 set a date for them to respond "Response Requested . (Due October 9, 2015)."

So it will be awhile before we hear anything. Will be checking and update as needed.

Lower court decision HERE

For now have a great day and a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offenders challenge Nevada supervision law

8-26-15 Nevada:

More than a dozen sex offenders are challenging the Nevada Parole Board's authority to impose conditions on their lifetime supervision.

The offenders, identified only as Does 1-16, filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against several state and local officials, including Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt.

According to the lawsuit, the Parole Board has relied on an unconstitutional Nevada law to place movement and residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders who are under its supervision. In some cases, those restrictions have prevented the plaintiffs from attending religious services or associating with certain people in certain areas.

"The state of Nevada should not be allowed to violate the Constitution," attorney Robert Draskovich said. "It doesn't matter whether a person has been convicted of an offense that the public may hate. No one is above the law, and it should be followed."

Draskovich and two other Las Vegas attorneys, Gary Modafferi and Allen Lichtenstein, are representing the plaintiffs in the case.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to prohibit enforcement of the law, officially known as Nevada Revised Statute 213.1243. The statute, passed in 1995, gives the Parole Board authority to establish a program of lifetime supervision. Residency and movement restrictions were added to the law in 2007.

According to the complaint, the law:

• Violates the First Amendment by infringing on the plaintiffs' freedom of religion and right to assemble.

• Violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because it imposes multiple punishments for the same crime.

• Violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, because violating a condition imposed by the Parole Board subjects an offender to another felony and a mandatory sentence of one to six years in prison.

"The sentence received for a violation of a condition inflicts a sentence disproportionate to the actual condition violated," according to the document.

• Violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Violates the ex post facto clause, because "these punitive conditions did not exist in law when the plaintiffs committed their offenses."

• Violates the contract clause, because it "substantially impairs the terms of plaintiffs' plea agreements by imposing conditions that did not and do not exist in any statute."

• Violates the separation of powers doctrine "by delegating the power to legislate to an executive agency without any intelligible standards and allowing the executive agency to interpret and apply the law," thereby infringing on the powers of both the legislative and judicial branches.

• Violates the bill of attainder clause by allowing the Parole Board "to inflict further punishment without a judicial trial."

Among the plaintiffs in the case is "Doe 7," a Las Vegas man who pleaded guilty in 1997 to sexual assault and battery with the intent to commit sexual assault. He received a prison term of 10 to 25 years and was released on Nov. 30, 2010. He is now on lifetime supervision with more than 21 conditions imposed by the Parole Board.

"Doe 7 had difficulties finding a job due to the conditions that he is subject to," the complaint alleges. "Doe 7 also incurred expenses for computer monitoring on his work and personal computers, which can be faulty and corrupt his work files by no fault of his own. This has created a financial burden to Doe 7 considering that he also has a family he needs to provide for. Furthermore Doe 7 has family out of state and has difficulty seeing them due to movement conditions imposed on him."

Another plaintiff, "Doe 13," is an Arizona resident who committed a sexual offense in 2006 and accepted a plea agreement the following year. He was sentenced to probation with lifetime supervision.

According to the lawsuit, the conditions of his supervision "have had a disabling impact" on his life, including forcing him to stop working as a phone line splicer because of travel restrictions.

"He has not been able to engage in any relationships with the women he has met because they have children and he cannot be near children," the document claims. "He cannot go to a movie without getting prior permission. Recently, his best friend died but he was unable to attend the funeral because of the travel restrictions."

Among the officials named as defendants in the case are Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo and Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson. Neither could be reached for comment. Patty Cafferata, spokeswoman for Laxalt, said in an email that the attorney general's office does not comment on pending litigation. ..Source.. by Carri Geer Thevenot

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

ACLU: RFRA must let sex offenders worship at churches with schools

Given the intent of RFRA (to stop anything that interferes with a person's right to worship their religion) it is quite apparent the sex offender law violates RFRA. (Two articles below)

7-2-2015 Indiana:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a lawsuit Wednesday invoking the state's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act to contend that not allowing serious sex offenders to attend churches with attached schools is an undue burden on religious rights.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, challenges another new state law that bans registered sex offenders from entering school property — including when a parochial school is located on the same grounds as a church.

Under RFRA, the ACLU said, the government is placing an undue burden on the religious beliefs of sex offenders.

"This is a prime example as a place where people's religious rights are being burdened, and therefore under RFRA the state has to justify that," said ACLU of Indiana legal director Ken Falk. "It makes no sense to ban people on a Sunday if there are kids there on a Thursday."

Serious sex offenders include sexually violent predators or those convicted of crimes such as child molestation, possession of child pornography or sexual misconduct with a minor.

The lawsuit in Elkhart Superior Court was filed against the prosecutors and sheriffs of Allen and Elkhart counties.

Indiana's new religious freedom law went into effect July 1. The law says if the government imposes an undue burden on the religious rights of individuals, businesses and religious organizations, it must prove a compelling interest and that it is using the least restrictive means possible.

The ACLU of Indiana opposed RFRA, arguing that the law would allow discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. But Falk said the lawsuit uses RFRA "as it was originally contemplated" to protect religious freedom.

"We're not going to pretend it doesn't exist now," Falk said. "It does exist. The legislature said it wants to protect religious liberties, and that's exactly what we're trying to do."

This story will be updated. ..Source.. by Stephanie Wang Copy of Complaint on Indiana Law Blog

---

Sex offenders sue, cite Indiana's religious objections law

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A lawsuit filed on behalf of two registered sex offenders cites Indiana's new religious objections law in arguing they've been wrongly prohibited from worshipping at churches that have schools on the same property.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of two unnamed sex offenders, one of whom belongs to a Fort Wayne church and another who has attended an Elkhart church.

The lawsuit claims that a new state law banning many sex offenders from going onto school property at any time presents an unjustified burden on the men's religious liberties under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana's legal director, called the additional sex offender restrictions absurd.

"The Legislature passes a law which says sex offenders cannot go into schools and it is being applied to people who are going to church or other religious observances during a time that there's no school in session," Falk said. "The law prohibits them from walking on that property — it's a felony to do so."

The religious objections law and the tougher sex offender restrictions both took effect Wednesday. The lawsuit said both men have regularly attended Sunday services and other events at their churches, but now fear being arrested if they do so.

The ban on sex offenders going onto school property gained little attention as it sailed through the state Legislature this year — clearing both the House and Senate without any votes cast against it.

A national outcry erupted after Republican Gov. Mike Pence signed the religious objections law in late March, with critics saying it would provide a legal defense for discrimination against gays, lesbians and others. It prohibits any government actions that would "substantially burden" a person's ability to follow his or her religious beliefs.

Douglas Laycock, a constitutional scholar at the University of Virginia Law School who helped win passage of the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said he believes the ACLU lawsuit has merit and that making it a crime to attend church services is a major burden on a person's religious practices.

"If you have any hope of rehabilitation, religion works for some people. Telling them they can't go to church doesn't make much sense," said Laycock, the lead writer of an analysis supporting the Indiana religious objections law. The analysis was frequently cited by the bill's sponsors.

Laycock said he's not aware of similar cases involving religious objections laws in the 19 other states with similar statutes.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long issued a statement blasting the ACLU of Indiana's filing of the lawsuit after the group opposed the religious objections law as it was debated in the General Assembly.

"The ACLU used to be a staunch supporter of religious liberty," said Long, a Republican. "Now they've reduced themselves to making a mockery of it. On top of this, they also support endangering our children while championing the rights of sex offenders. It's a sad day for the ACLU."

The lawsuit, filed in Elkhart County Superior Court, names the prosecutors and sheriffs of Allen and Elkhart counties as defendants. Neither prosecutor's office had immediate comment Thursday on the lawsuit.

Falk said the lawsuit is serious and that the group has long worked to protect the right to worship.

"Regardless of what we said about the law, it is the law now," he said. "This is a very conservative use of the law." by TOM DAVIES

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Man fights designation as a sexual offender

UPDATED 11-12-15: Sex-Offender Registration and Notification Mandates Are Constitutional

3-9-15 Ohio:

Travis Blankenship is marked with what one judge describes as an undeserved “scarlet letter” — that of a sex offender.

Blankenship was 21, working part time at a department store and a few hours away from receiving his associate’s degree at Clark State Community College in Springfield when he had an affair with a 15-year-old girl.

But the illicit relationship did not remain secret, and he was arrested. A psychologist found he was not a sex offender, did not require treatment and was unlikely to commit another offense.

A judge likewise did not consider Blankenship much of a threat, sentencing him in 2012 to serve 12 days of a six-month sentence for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a fourth-degree felony.

But, under Ohio’s Adam Walsh Act, Blankenship automatically was declared a Tier II sex offender, requiring him to register his address, employment and other information with the sheriff for the next 25 years.

His public defender will argue before the Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday that mandatory sex-offender registration constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when it is “grossly disproportionate” to the offender’s character and crime.

Ohio prosecutors, including Franklin County’s Ron O’Brien, counter that sex-offender registration justifiably protects the public and is “not shocking to any reasonable person in this state.”

Blankenship is appealing a 2-1 decision by the Second District Ohio Court of Appeals that upheld his classification as a sex offender, which before 2007 required a hearing and allowed judges to make the call.

Judge Mary Donovan was the dissenter, writing, “He was punished with a scarlet letter of 25 years duration ... grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.

“This classification carries significant restraints on Blankenship’s liberty and a social stigma that interferes with employability, travel and housing.”

Clark County Prosecutor D. Andrew Wilson counters that Blankenship’s conduct was “typical of grooming behavior by sexual predators.”

“Blankenship engaged in sexual intercourse with a young and impressionable 15-year-old girl when he was an adult. This is a clear violation of the law,” his office argues.

“Registration is by no means shocking. Rather it is a consolation and comfort to the families and victims of sexual offenses.”

O’Brien filed a friend-of-the-court brief, saying automatic sex-offender classification and registration is legal. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that offender registration does not constitute punishment, he said.

“If it’s not punishment, it can’t be cruel and unusual,” O’Brien said.

However, Katherine Ross-Kinzie, the assistant state public defender representing Blankenship, said the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s offender-classification scheme is punitive in nature.

“Decades of sex-offender registration requirements, restrictions, and consequences constitute cruel and unusual punishment for people like Travis,” she said.

In another case, the high court will hear arguments on Wednesday in the case of Dale Johnston, a Grove City man who spent seven years on Death Row after he was wrongly convicted of the 1982 murders of his stepdaughter and her fiance.

He is asking the justices to reverse a Franklin County Court of Appeals ruling that threw out a trial judge’s finding that he was illegally detained for the dismemberment slayings in Hocking County. Such a finding is required to allow Johnston to seek damages for wrongful imprisonment from the state. ..Source.. by Randy Ludlow

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Ruling on sex offenders, social media upsets police agencies

UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook

8-23-2013 North Carolina:

Some area law enforcement agencies are speaking out against Tuesday’s North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling that a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using social networking sites is too broad and illegal.

“They need to rewrite the law if the concern is it’s too broad,” said Randy Jones, spokesman with the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office. “We need to have protection for our kids. These people are online, in social chat rooms.”

According to the 2008 law, it’s a felony for a sex offender to use a website that allows minors to become members or create or maintain pages on the website.

A convicted sex offender contested his case, arguing that the law violated his free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press under the First and 14th amendments. It is the first constitutional challenge to the law heard before the court, according to the ruling.

The defendant argued that the statute is too broad, treating all sex offenders the same, regardless of the severity of the crime they committed, whether a computer was used and without regard of how likely they were to commit a crime again.

Under the statute, convicted offenders could not use Amazon, Google or even the Food Network’s website because the sites allow social profiles, message boards, photo sharing and derive revenue from ads.

“It fails to target those offenders who pose a factually-based risk to children through the use or threatened use of banned sites or services,” the ruling reads. “It burdens more people than necessary to achieve its purported goal.”

The three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled unanimously. The Court of Appeals is the state’s intermediate appeals venue. Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose office represented the state in the case, said lawyers will ask the state Supreme Court to hear the case. Since it was a unanimous ruling, justices aren’t obligated to take up the appeal.

Guilford County Sheriff’s Col. Randy Powers said the ruling won’t have a big impact in Guilford County, because it deals with many first-time offenders, rather than those who have been convicted.

The sheriff’s office is still concerned about the Court of Appeals’ ruling, though.

“The question will be, does the (state) Supreme Court take the case or not?” Powers asked.

If the Court of Appeals ruling stands, Powers said he and Guilford Sheriff BJ Barnes have talked about trying to speak to a local legislator about amending the current law or writing a new one that would better address the issue, so convicted sex offenders would not have access to chat rooms and social networking websites where they can prey on children.

As for any future online activity convicted sex offenders may be involved in, Powers said that will be addressed as it arises.

“Hopefully, there will be another statute amending this one, or a new one will be passed,” he said. “This will not stop us from making arrests for people soliciting (children) online.”

“It needs to go on to the Supreme Court,” said Randy Jones, spokesman with the Alamance County Sheriff’s Office. “Sex offenders are using social networking for predatory actions.”

The Alamance County Sheriff’s Office Crimes Against Children Task Force monitors sex offenders online, Jones said, to see if they are involved in illegal activity. He said the task force is not watching the offenders’ spending habits.

“You wouldn’t find us going after the people who look at the Food Network’s website,” Jones said. “I haven’t seen anyone charged (for social media use) unless we’re already investigating them.”

Many people charged with sex crimes are repeat offenders, Jones said, which is why he’s concerned about the ruling. They also sometimes target several people at once.

A few years ago, Jones recalls one suspect in his 40s who was posing as a 16-year-old online, targeting 51 people at once.

The Burlington Police Department will continue to investigate convicted sex offenders’ online activities as best it can under the Court of Appeals’ decision, said Assistant Chief Chris Verdeck. ..Source.. by Sarah Newell Williamson

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sex offender social media change worries parents

UPDATED 11-6-15 North Carolina upholds ban on sex offenders using Facebook

8-22-2013 North Carolina:

It's a scary day for parents across the state as sex offenders realize there is now no law to prevent them from going on websites frequented by children.

The law was struck down Tuesday by the state appeals court. Now, sex offenders and parents alike are taking note of the change.

The Wake County District Attorney's office tells us that sex offenders are calling their probation officers to make sure it is now legal for them to go on websites frequented by children. The answer to that question is yes.

There is no law to prevent registered sex offenders from getting on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, or any other social media site.

The old law, which was found to be so vague it violated the right to free speech, banned those offenders from any site that allowed children as members.

Wednesday, at least one parent who spoke to ABC11 expressed serious concerns about the possibility of opening the floodgates to a pent up desire to stalk children.

"I just picture some guy sitting in his recliner with a bowl of cheese puffs and a tank top just going after my kids," said Renee Duke. "Just sitting there trying his best to get to manipulate and get my kids."

Many parents say it has always been important for parents to closely monitor their children's internet activity, but now it's more important than ever.

A prosecutor here who handles these types of crimes is also urging parents to be diligent and he hopes that a new law can be written that will withstand a legal challenge.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper wanted the law but admits it may have to be rewritten, but he will try to appeal the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Cooper notes that there are still laws on the books that investigators can use to charge suspects with soliciting children online. However, he believes we need a law to try to prevent child sex crimes before they happen.

If Cooper's attempt at an appeal fails, he says he will go back to the legislature to see if they can craft a new sex offender social media law that will withstand a legal challenge. ..Source.. by Ed Crump

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...