12-21-17 Indiana:
Three men have filed a lawsuit over an Indiana requirement that they register as sex offenders when moving to the state.
They say they're being treated differently than other residents in similar situations.
The men were convicted out of state, and before the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act was enacted.
The lawsuit says that the state typically doesn't require sex offenders to register if they were convicted before the act took effect, and if they haven't moved to Indiana from another state.
However, the state does require offenders who have temporarily left Indiana or are moving to the Hoosier state to register. ..Source..
Showing posts with label ( .News-Courts-Lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ( .News-Courts-Lawsuits. Show all posts
December 21, 2017
Lawsuit over Indiana sex offender registry requirement
November 14, 2017
Sex offenders settle lawsuit over living in 'school zones'
11-14-17 Michigan:
GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Three Grand Rapids men on Michigan's Sex Offender Registry have settled a federal lawsuit against the state over housing requirements that restrict where they can live.
They had been told they could not live in homes that were within 1,000 feet of a school zone.
Attorney Sarah Riley Howard challenged the school-zone law as vague, and said it is confusing. The settlement comes after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a similar Michigan case.
One of her clients, she said, was told by Grand Rapids Police Department that he and his wife could buy a house only to be told later it fell within a school zone. ..Continued..
October 8, 2017
City fights complaint over sex offender residency restrictions
10-8-17 California:
A registered sex offender is claiming the city’s residency restrictions are unconstitutional.
Martin Weiss filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on August 2 in the Central District Court of California. The 16-page complaint claims Claremont’s sex offender residency restrictions, which were adopted in January 2010, violate the Fourteenth Amendment and constitute banishment from the city. Mr. Weiss wants them declared null and void.
The city filed a response on September 29 seeking to dismiss the complaint with prejudice and demanding a jury trial.
The focus of the suit is Claremont municipal code title 9, chapter 9.82, which restricts sex offenders from residing within a “residential exclusion zone,” which means anywhere within 2,000 feet from a K-12 public or private school, park and/or child care center. According to the complaint, there is virtually no place for a sex offender registrant to live in Claremont, due to the city’s restrictions.
Additionally, the ordinance prohibits a registrant from “renting or otherwise occupying” a single-family home, multi-family home or a hotel anywhere in the city, if another registrant is also at the same dwelling, unless they’re related by blood, marriage or adoption.
“The exclusion zone basically says if you’re on a registry you can’t spend a single night in a hotel in Claremont,” Mr. Weiss’ attorney, Janice Bellucci, said in a phone interview. ..Continued..
September 11, 2017
Hurricane Irma: Florida sheriff who threatened arrests at shelters is sued
9-10-17 Florida:
A man who claims he was denied entry to a shelter unless he underwent a background check is suing Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, who got national attention after saying on Twitter he would jail anyone with an outstanding warrant who tried to seek shelter from Hurricane Irma.
Judd called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said he would not change his policy.
The sheriff said his stance was to prevent registered sex offenders from entering shelters. But the suit filed by immigrant rights group Nexus Services states Florida driver’s licenses already clearly mark someone as a sex offender. They claim the policy was discriminatory and violates Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
The suit, which attorney Cynthia Conlin said was electronically filed Sunday but hadn’t yet been processed by the 10th Judicial Circuit Court, claims Andres Borreno of Virginia was told by Polk County deputies he would have to submit to a criminal background check before he was able to enter a shelter Saturday. The suit doesn’t say if Borreno had an outstanding warrant.
“The officer … also never told Borreno that he was suspected of any crime or illegal act at that time,” the suit states. “Criminal suspicion is not raised by trying to enter an emergency shelter to save one’s life and the life of family members.”
Judd said Sunday “They filed that lawsuit for free press and it's obviously frivolous. I have a nationwide profile and they see it as an opportunity for nationwide press.”
Judd said Borreno wasn't treated differently than others seeking shelter. He was offered shelter at the jail and was offered a ride. Judd said he didn't know if Borreno went to the shelter. ..Continued..
September 8, 2017
US-based lawyer sues Kenyan blogger for defamation
9-8-17:
A Kenyan lawyer based in the US has sued a Kenyan blogger for defamation and failing to pull down an offending article published last year.
In a suit filed at the Montgomery County Circuit Court in Maryland, Ms Regina Njogu accuses the owner of the blog named Kenyapoa of writing a “malicious story which has caused me emotional distress”.
In the testimony filed at the court registry and seen by Nation on Thursday, Ms Njogu, who is a partner at RNW law firm, says that the said blogger wrote an article which erroneously characterised her as having been suspended indefinitely from practicing law in the US for misconduct. ..Continued..
August 13, 2017
Sex Offender Law Prompts Lawsuit
8-12-17 Missouri:
A federal lawsuit filed against a county sheriff's office in Missouri alleges that an initiative to arrest sex offenders near a charity violates the organization's constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal lawsuit filed against a county sheriff's office in Missouri alleges that an initiative to arrest sex offenders near a charity violates the organization's constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom.
The Kansas City Star reports the suit filed by the City Union Mission focuses on how the Jackson County Sheriff's Office interprets a Missouri law. The law mentioned in the suit prohibits some offenders from "loitering" within 500 feet of a public park that contains a pool or playground equipment.
The suit argues that the law doesn't sufficiently define the term "loiter" and is too vague.
"We want to get that cleared up," said Jonathan Whitehead, attorney for the mission. "Seeking shelter, food or prayer is not loitering."
According to the suit, the sheriff's office now says that the law applies to the charity's kitchens and shelters even though those buildings are being used for religious ministry.
"As a result, the sheriff's office has threatened to arrest certain mission employees or guests on mission property," the suit says. ..Continued..
August 11, 2017
Threats to arrest convicted sex offenders at City Union Mission prompt federal lawsuit
8-11-17 Missouri:
The Jackson County Sheriff’s Office is targeting some sex offenders for arrest at the City Union Mission because it sits near a park, according to a federal lawsuit alleging that the practice violates the charity’s constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom.
The suit centers on how the sheriff’s office interprets a Missouri law that prohibits certain offenders from “loitering” within 500 feet of a public park that contains a pool or playground equipment.
The mission operates several facilities in the 1100 block of East 10th Street near Margaret Kemp Park, and the sheriff’s office has interpreted that law to cover those offenders at the mission, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City.
The suit contends that the Missouri law does not adequately define the term “loiter” and is unconstitutionally vague.
“We want to get that cleared up,” said Jonathan Whitehead, attorney for the mission. “Seeking shelter, food or prayer is not loitering.”
The sheriff’s office is now saying that the law “applies to kitchens and shelters of the mission, even though those buildings are being used for religious ministry and not for ‘loitering,’ ” according to the suit.
“As a result, the sheriff’s office has threatened to arrest certain mission employees or guests on mission property,” according to the suit. ..Continued..
August 8, 2017
Federal Lawsuit Challenges San Diego's Sex Offender Residency Restrictions
8-8-17 California:
A federal lawsuit was filed Monday saying San Diego's residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders are unconstitutional and in violation of state and federal laws.
The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 last week to keep the city's Child Protection Act despite the potential for a lawsuit.
Under the ordinance, a registered sex offender convicted after April 13, 2008, is not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school, park, playground, library, day care, amusement center or arcade.
The City Council was asked by San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott to rescind the ordinance saying it could lead to a lawsuit against the city. Elliott said 97 percent of registered sex offenders in the area are unable to find a place to live because of the ordinance's restrictions. ..Continued..
August 1, 2017
Family announces federal lawsuit 2 years after Orange County inmate's death
8-1-17 Florida:
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. - The family of a man who died while an inmate at the Orange County Jail announced Monday that they were in the process of filing a federal lawsuit against the county, almost two years after Max Gracia II's death.
The family told Channel 9 that they worked to negotiate with the county, but said they didn't see enough change in policy that would keep the same type of death from happening in the future.
Gracia died four days after he was bitten by a police dog and taken to jail in August 2015.
About three months later, his death was ruled a homicide, which raised concerns about his treatment.
In December 2015, a report claimed Gracia was so sick that other inmates had to drag him on the floor to move him from cell to cell.
"If he did anything wrong, then that was between him and the court system. But he didn't get that opportunity," the victim’s mother, Willine Gracia, said in early 2016.
While announcing the lawsuit Monday, Willine Gracia said the court action was about making a change, not about making a dollar.
"It's not about the money," she said. "It's not.
"You can't treat a human being that way. It doesn't matter about color, race, none of that matters. My son screamed and laid there in agony and pain. Dying. My God." ..Continued..
Lawsuit Says Only Five Out Of Thousands Treated For Hepatitis C In Missouri Prisons
8-1-17 Missouri:
A lawsuit alleging the Missouri Department of Corrections systematically denies medical treatment to prisoners with chronic hepatitis C has taken a big leap forward after a judge certified it as a class action.
U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey last week ruled that the lawsuit, which was filed in December, meets all the requirements for class certification, including numerous plaintiffs and common issues of law and fact.
The ruling is significant because the class potentially includes thousands of inmates. At least 10 to 15 percent of the Missouri prison population is infected with hepatitis C, and the corrections department itself, in response to a Sunshine Act request, estimated last year that it had 5,200 inmates with hep C. The hepatitis C rate among the general population is about 1 percent.
"By not treating them, they're increasing the spread of the disease within this population," says Gillian Wilcox, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Missouri, which represents the plaintiffs. "Ninety-six percent of these people are coming back into communities." ..Continued..
July 24, 2017
Teacher convicted of having sex with her student suing teenage boy for defamation
7-23-17 California:
A 36-year-old teacher convicted of having sex with a person under the legal age of consent in California is suing the student she slept with for defamation.
Tara Stumph, who is currently serving a 180 day sentence for having sex with a 16-year-old student, says that statements made by the young man hurt her reputation and her career.
Her victim defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community,” Stumph alleges in her lawsuit, local media reports say.
She started her sentence on 1 May.
Stumph was named alongside her former employer, the Lucia Mar School District, in the lawsuit brought against her by her victim’s family. She pleaded no contest to the charges in April. The next hearing in her civil case is scheduled for October.
Her teaching licence was revoked following her conviction, but she won’t have to register as a sex offender after leaving prison.
Her lawsuit is seeking indemnity — or protection against financial burden or judgements — from all charges related to the case. That includes any injuries she may receive from the school, financial burdens of the lawsuit, and any civil damages.
Stumps will be on probation for four years following her release from prison, during which time she will be subject to specialised counselling and periodic polygraph tests. ..Continued..
May 28, 2017
6 sex offenders sue City of Milwaukee over 2,000-foot sex offender residency ordinance
An "Ordinance" is a local law enacted by local Officials, and must be followed -in the area Officials cover-. State laws cover the whole state while ordinances only cover specific areas. (State laws are enacted by state officials while "Ordinances" are enacted by local officials)5-28-17 Wisconsin:
MILWAUKEE — The City of Milwaukee is the focus of a federal lawsuit, with six sex offenders suing the city.
They’re suing over the 2,000-foot buffer zone around schools, parks, playgrounds, day cares and other places children can be found.
Milwaukee’s sex offender ordinance says they cannot live in those areas.
The lawsuit says the ordinance amounts to banishment, which is against the constitution. It claims some of the offenders are homeless as a result, and others are being forced to live in compromised situations.
The attorneys who filed the lawsuit are the same ones who just won a similar federal lawsuit against the Village of Pleasant Prairie. ..Continued.....
May 17, 2017
Hundreds of Missouri sex offenders now required to wear GPS monitoring devices for life
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
May 12, 2017
Florida prisoners with hepatitis are at risk for worse, lawsuit claims
See also: Lawsuit Says State Refuses to Treat Prisoners for Hepatitis C, Letting Some Die5-11-17 Florida:
Thousands of Florida prison inmates who have hepatitis C are not getting adequate medication and treatment — leaving them at risk for liver failure, liver cancer and death, according to a lawsuit filed against the Florida Department of Corrections.
The case, brought on behalf of three state prison inmates who have the disease, alleges that up to 40,000 state inmates could have some form of the disease, which can potentially be spread — not only among the prison population — but to the general public if not treated by the time an inmate is released.
The lawsuit, filed by the Florida Justice Institute, seeks an immediate injunction forcing the state prison system to start treating inmates with the disease by providing medications that have been approved and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Federal Drug Administration since 2013.
“The FDC recognizes that hepatitis C is a serious disease that is easy to cure,” said Randall C. Berg Jr., FJI’s executive director. “Yet it routinely fails to provide lifesaving medication to people incarcerated in Florida.”
The Institute maintains that FDC’s treatment rate is among the lowest in the nation, and that as many as 40,000 of the state’s 99,000 inmates could be infected. ..Continued.. by JULIE K. BROWN
May 4, 2017
Family of inmate killed in 2015 Tecumseh prison riot files lawsuit against Nebraska
5-2-17 Nebraska:
LINCOLN — The family of an inmate who died during the Mother’s Day 2015 riot at the Tecumseh State Prison has filed a lawsuit accusing the state of failing to protect him and adequately staff the facility.
Shon Collins, 46, was one of two inmates found dead after inmates took control of two housing units at the prison for several hours, setting fires and ransacking cells, resulting in more than $2 million in damage.
The lawsuit, filed by Lincoln attorney Joy Shiffermiller, says that the state failed to keep Collins apart from other inmates.
A spokeswoman for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services declined to comment, saying that the agency’s policy is to not comment about pending legal action.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Lancaster County District Court, did not specify an amount of damages requested. But Collins’ family asked for $1.2 million in a claim with the State of Nebraska that was denied last year.
Collins, a sex offender, was in protective custody, separated from other inmates, at the time of the riot because he previously had been threatened and assaulted by other inmates, the lawsuit says.
Yet, on the day of the riot, the suit says, inmates from three housing units, including those in general population and those in protective custody, were all released from their cells to a prison yard to obtain medications.
When the riot broke out, corrections officers quickly were overwhelmed and fled to a prison guard tower, leaving Collins unprotected, the suit says. “The inmates were left to fend for themselves while the staff left their posts and ran for safety.”
Collins was serving 66 to 80 years for first-degree sexual assault of a child and visual depiction of sexually explicit content in Box Butte County. His sentence began in 2010.
Collins, his family was told, died from blunt force trauma but also had been stabbed several times.
The other inmate found dead, Donald Peacock, was also a sex offender. He was sentenced in Dodge County to serve 40 to 50 years for first-degree sexual assault of a child and visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct. He began his sentence in 2014.
Collins’ lawsuit is the first filed in connection with five deaths at the Tecumseh prison over the past two years. The deaths have raised questions about the staffing and safety at the state’s highest-security facility. ..Source.. by Paul Hammel BH News Service
April 25, 2017
Why Doesn’t the Hippocratic Oath Apply to the Nation’s Prisons?
UPDATE: Washington State: Class-action Alleges DOC Policy of Denying Medical CareOriginal date: Nov 2015 Washington:
Many inmates will do anything to avoid seeking medical assistance if they can help it. A recent lawsuit in Washington State explains why.
The Hippocratic Oath has long embodied all that is good in the medical profession. Those who swear by it vow to act “for the benefit of the sick” and to prevent “harm and injustice” from befalling their patients.
But in the correctional system, the Oath is often undermined or, at best, ignored.
The Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) is an unfortunate example. Medical professionals within the WDOC acknowledge in depositions that its medical staff are required to use “a different standard to evaluate patients than is used [ ] in the community,” and some medical personnel in WDOC concede there is nothing “science-based or humane” about the policies that govern their decision-making.
These claims are currently the subject of a lawsuit, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, brought against WDOC by the non-profit Columbia Legal Services (CLS) on behalf of prisoners throughout the State of Washington. [See, Daniel Haldane, et al. v. G. Stephen Hammond, M.D., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01810-RAJ]
CLS is seeking to end WDOC’s use of “a healthcare pre-approval process to restrict medical costs at the expense of necessary prisoner healthcare” and maintains this practice poses “an ongoing, serious risk of harm to all 16,000 prisoners under DOC’s care,” according to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
The medical conditions complained of include: commonly withholding opioid treatment even when a prisoner’s chronic and substantial pain is unresponsive to other therapies; and refusing to authorize surgery even when, as a result, prisoners must struggle to wipe themselves after toileting.
While the efforts of CLS should be applauded, prisoners should nevertheless resist the temptation to believe this litigation will lead to better medical treatment throughout WDOC.
Even enlightened, well-meaning policies can degenerate into arbitrary and unsound decision-making. Having suffered the brunt of such decisions over the last quarter century during my confinement, I have come to believe a correctional system’s shortcomings are often rooted in the negative views of the employees.
Views that developed in an era of mass incarceration.
One of the consequences of mass incarceration is the adoption of a military mindset by many correctional employees as the paramount goal within prisons came to be maintaining order and security. When this becomes the ultimate objective, staff members can easily begin to perceive the prison as hostile territory and prisoners as the enemy—especially when the level of violence within a facility makes the working conditions quite dangerous (relatively speaking).
Once this prisoner-as-enemy mentality takes hold of correctional staff, the idea that they should show care or humanity to those who are confined seems to be frowned upon and rejected.
Harm and injustice at first is tolerated, then becomes accepted.
The prison infirmary is no exception. I have seen and felt the iciness that medical providers evince when they have this mindset . Trust me, it would impress the most cold-hearted convict.
Even in prisons with relatively safe working conditions, there is a general lack of sympathy for prisoners with medical problems.
Furthermore, to expect proper diagnosis and treatment to be advanced by people with these attitudes is to ignore common sense and human nature.
Yet even in prisons with relatively safe working conditions, there is a general lack of sympathy for prisoners with medical problems. Their health needs are rarely taken seriously.
Indeed, I have long resorted to toughing it out or trying every home remedy that a convict can conceive before heading to medical to find relief.
Like other medical departments in WDOC, prisoners must be ready for war when they enter the medical facility at Stafford Creek Corrections Center. While the inside is nice and clean, physician assistants and nurses face off with prisoners as adversaries.
When I explain what ails me, I know, without a doubt, that every attempt will be made to dismiss my symptoms as if I am malingering or exaggerating; and I will likely be sent away with, at best, ibuprofen or amitriptyline—WDOC’s cure-alls for damn near everything.
If I complained, it is almost certain that I would be ordered to leave unceremoniously; and, were I to hesitate because the pain I was enduring was all-consuming, I will be handcuffed and escorted to segregation—like the enemy.
The message is: We are unworthy.
We are degenerates.
We should be grateful to get any medical treatment by the DOC.
These ubiquitous views explain why a correctional system might see fit to establish “a practice of withholding necessary medical care from patients with serious and painful medical conditions,” as CLS claims to be the case with WDOC. Such practices only develop when correctional employees do not believe the welfare of prisoners is a priority.
That said, my jaundiced eye has not left me without empathy, so I urge readers not to judge correctional medical personnel too harshly.
With all due respect to Hippocrates, it is easy to tolerate harm and injustice when both have been perpetrated by one’s patients.
Jeremiah Bourgeois is a regular contributor to TCR, and an inmate in Washington State, where he is currently serving 25 years to life for a crime committed when he was 14. He will be eligible to go before the parole board in 2017. He welcomes comments from readers. ..Source.. by an inmate (reprint from: https://thecrimereport.org)
March 15, 2017
Florida ex-felons file class action suit over voting laws
3-15-17 Florida:
Seven convicted felons on Monday filed suit [complaint, PDF] alleging Florida's process of restoring voting rights to felons is unconstitutionally arbitrary. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida by the Fair Elections Legal Network [advocacy website] and the Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC [firmwebsite] on behalf of the seven plaintiffs, seeks to restore voting rights for ex-felons and eliminate the current process.
Florida, Kentucky, Iowa and Virginia are the only states that require former felons to petition to public officials for the restoration of their voting rights. According the the complaint, there is no timetable required under the current law for a judgment on an ex-felon's petition, and the 10,513 pending applications have created a significant backlog for the review board.
"On September 1, 2016, this figure was 10,588. The backlog has only decreased by 75 pending applications in six months, demonstrating that the current system has both caused Florida's disenfranchised population to grow to 1.68 million and is utterly unsuited to addressing the ever-worsening problem." ..Continue.. by Jurist
March 8, 2017
Sex offender sues Ventura school district
3-8-17 California:
A registered sex offender who committed his crime 27 years ago has sued the Ventura Unified School District over a district policy that forbids him from taking his child to and from her elementary school.
The Ventura man's lawyers said they took the unusual step of filing the suit directly with the California Supreme Court "because it raises issues of great public importance." The suit seeks a court order directing the school district to rescind the policy.
The district's general counsel, Anthony Ramos, did not respond to messages seeking comment.
But private attorneys representing the district in the case are asking the Supreme Court to deny the lawsuit on grounds that it should have been filed in Ventura County Superior Court.
"However important the issue may be to petitioner, he has not and cannot establish any statewide importance at this juncture so as to warrant immediate intervention by this (Supreme) Court," they wrote in their response to the lawsuit.
The plaintiff is identified in the suit only as John Doe for the protection of him and his young daughter, his lawyers said.
His suit, filed Feb. 15, says that the district's policy also prohibits him from participating in any school activities such as parent-teacher conferences, plays, concerts and graduation ceremonies.
Violates due process?
The suit alleges that the policy violates the plaintiff's due process rights under both the California Constitution and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"The due process clauses ... protect the fundamental right of association between parents and children, which includes the right of parents to participate in and to direct the education of their children," the suit states.
The policy is also inconsistent with state law, said the plaintiff's attorneys, Janice Bellucci, executive director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws in Los Angeles, and Dennis Riordan, who is based in San Francisco.
The lawsuit notes that state Penal Code Section 626.81 makes it a misdemeanor for a parent who is a registered sex offender to enter school grounds without "lawful business" and "written permission" from the school.
But "that section does not grant authority to school officials to deny access to school grounds to parents" who are registered sex offenders, the suit states. ..Continued..
March 7, 2017
Sacramento hit with $5 million verdict in lawsuit saying wrong man was arrested for Internet child sex abuse
3-7-17 California:
A Los Angeles man charged in an Internet child-sex-abuse case in 2011 and held for six months before the charges were dismissed has won a $5 million civil suit against the city of Sacramento and its police department, the man’s attorney said Monday.
The jury verdict in federal court in Los Angeles came after a five-day trial in a case in which attorney Jeff Dominic Price accused the police of fabricating evidence, malicious prosecution and violating his client’s civil rights.
“I asked for $100,000 for the arrest and for the first few days in custody, and then I asked for them to award many, many times that for the rest of the incarceration,” said Price, a Santa Monica attorney who said the jury came back after about six hours with an award of $5,005,000.
Sacramento City Attorney James Sanchez said city officials disagreed with the verdict and might contest it in court.
“We are disappointed in the verdict and believe there is no reasonable basis for the size of the damage award,” Sanchez said. “We are reviewing all our options including appeal of the decision.”
Price said the case stemmed from a case of mistaken identity and actions by police that missed obvious signs there was a problem with their case.
The plaintiff, identified in court papers only as “J.N.,” was arrested after Sacramento police began an investigation into a 2011 complaint from the mother of a 12-year-old Sacramento girl who was being contacted by men on Facebook and being asked to disrobe in front of a webcam while one performed sex acts on himself.
The girl was using a laptop she had gotten for Christmas and communicating with the suspects in a “Tiny Chats” site associated with Facebook, court documents state.
One of the men had a Facebook page under the name “Pater Noster,” which is Latin for “Our Father,” court papers state.
Sacramento police Detective Heather Hendrickson ran the last name through police records and located a man with that name and a criminal history, court papers say.
Police obtained a photo of that suspect and presented it and five others in a photo lineup to the girl in March 2011. The girl pointed to the picture of the suspect and said “he is too skinny, the guy that I saw was much chunkier,” court papers say. After a few more seconds she added, “That kind of looks like him,” and Hendrickson told her to draw a circle around the picture, court papers say.
The lawsuit filed against the city said Hendrickson submitted a search warrant affidavit that omitted the fact that the girl said the suspect was “too skinny” to be the man she saw on camera.
Court papers also say Hendrickson went to the FBI for help on the case and an agent told her he would subpoena Facebook for information on the “Pater Noster” account. The FBI soon determined that the account was being logged into from a device in Vienna, Austria, but Hendrickson didn’t find that out because “she did not follow up with the FBI,” court papers say.
The suspect was arrested Aug. 15, 2011, in front of his Los Angeles home and brought to Sacramento, where he was charged with seven felony counts.
The suspect told Hendrickson he had not committed the crimes and that he was not on Facebook, the lawsuit said. Police seized his computer and later found “no Facebook account registered on the hard drive” and no evidence that there ever had been a Facebook account used on the computer, the lawsuit states.
In February 2012, the girl was brought in for an in-person lineup that included the suspect, but she did not recognize any of the men, the lawsuit said. A few days later, charges in Sacramento Superior Court were dismissed, online records show.
Price said in the lawsuit that his client “suffered pain, fright, fear, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of liberty, as well as mental, emotional and physical injuries.”
“He still has adverse effects from this because people are aware that he was charged with that offense,” Price added in a telephone interview Monday after the verdict. “He’s doing a lot better, he’s working.”
Price also said that the girl, now 17, “has been adversely affected by the whole situation,” and that the man who committed the crime has never been found. ..Source.. by Sam Stanton
March 3, 2017
Wisconsin communities challenged over efforts to push sex offenders out
3-3-17 Wisconsin:
Five years after he was convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, Brian Cowan, 58, was released from prison onto probation in 2004 and moved into a two-unit apartment building in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Cowan lived there for years without trouble. Probation officials were satisfied enough with Cowan’s conduct that they placed another offender to live with him, believing Cowan would “be a good influence” on the other sex offender, according to a pending lawsuit in a U.S. District Court in Milwaukee.
But when the woman in the other unit complained about the conduct of Cowan’s roommate, authorities ordered Cowan to move to another location within three days.
Cowan is one of five sex offenders who contend in a lawsuit in Milwaukee federal district court that the town is making it impossible for some offenders to find housing after they have served their sentences and been released to the community.
A few miles away from Kenosha, a group of sex offenders brought their own lawsuit after the village of Pleasant Prairie adopted an ordinance last April that did more than just establish geographic restrictions; it sought to keep sex offenders from outside the village from moving to town. The village has since rewritten its ordinance, and is trying to resolve the lawsuit.
But the efforts of those two Wisconsin towns reflect the ongoing struggle between government authorities trying to keep their communities safe and defendants who find their freedom greatly restricted after they serve their sentences.
In Illinois, an appellate court panel voted 2-1 in February to strike down an Illinois law that prohibited previously-convicted sex offenders from going into public parks. Mark Pepitone was arrested after Bolingbrook police ran his license plate after seeing his car parked illegally and discovered during the time Pepitone was walking his dog in a park the record of his past offense.
Writing for herself and Justice William E. Holdridge, Justice Mary W. McDade wrote that the law was so overbroad it prohibited Pepitone not only from walking his dog but also from attending a Chicago Bears game in Soldier Field, or from entering the Art Institute or the Museum of Science and Industry, all of which are on public park land.
A lawsuit also is pending in Northern District of Illinois federal court on behalf of Illinois sex offenders who are approved for release from prison but remain locked up, potentially for life, because Department of Corrections officials reject potential housing on a variety of reasons, even whether a relative in the same house owns a smartphone.
There is no doubt why communities have passed these restrictions: there is widespread fear that sex offenders are very likely to repeat the offense, and the result to victims – often children or young women – can be horrific and cause permanent damage. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy stating that the “risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders” is “frightening and high.”
Researchers have in recent years argued over how great is the danger posed by ex-sex offenders, and conflicting studies depend, in part, over what kind of sex crime the offender had committed; men convicted of pedophilia, for example, are very different from teenagers convicted of sex with underage partners.
Whatever the true impact, an increasing number of court decisions are ruling that communities have gone too far as they develop tight restrictions to effectively bar, or even keep confined, people convicted in the past of sex offenses. “People who have committed grave offenses are still human beings,” said Chicago attorney Mark Weinberg, one of the attorneys on the Kenosha and Pleasant Prairie lawsuits as well as the case challenging Illinois mandatory supervised release practices.
Several research studies have questioned whether laws restricting where ex-offenders can live are even effective. A study by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, for example, failed to observe a significant difference in sex crime offenses reported by jurisdictions that imposed residency restrictions over jurisdictions that did not.
“People have very strong beliefs that are not based on facts, not based on data, but their own fears,” said Ira Ellman, a law professor at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law. “The more that you do to burden people on sex offender registries, the more difficult you make it for them to resume a law-abiding life.”
Increasingly, courts are scrutinizing laws that issue blanket restrictions on sex offenders rather than evaluating the risk each individual poses.
Acting in a San Diego County case in 2015, the California Supreme Court struck down the “blanket enforcement” of restrictions imposed on parolees, leaving them hampered in obtaining housing as well as counseling and help. Since then, several municipalities, including the City of Fullerton, have been sued by the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws for laws still on their books that appear to conflict with the state Supreme Court ruling.
In Kenosha, the issue is not just the wording of the ordinance, but how it is enforced. The pending lawsuit contends that officials selectively enforce the law, arbitrarily using it to force some convicted offenders from their housing.
After Cowan was ordered to move from the house once a neighbor complained, the new place he found is itself out of compliance with Kenosha’s ordinance, since there is both a church and a school nearby, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit contends that Cowan’s experience is “typical” of Kenosha’s enforcement practices, where the ordinance is “haphazardly and randomly” enforced, leaving offenders “subject the whim of authorities’ arbitrary enforcement practices and in a constant state of fear that they will be forced to move at a moment’s notice and/or returned to prison for violating the Ordinance’s residency restrictions.”
Issiah Lairds, now 61, was freed on intensive supervision in 2008 after he spent four years in prison, having plead guilty to assaulting a 14-year old. But because of the strict law limiting where sex offenders can live, Lairds lived for months in his car, parked in the lot of his parole office in downtown Kenosha.
Over and over, Lairds was turned down by authorities when he found possible housing, running afoul of one another of the many restrictions written into Kenosha’s ordinance, according to the lawsuit. He cannot live too close to a school or church or playground. He cannot live within six blocks of any other sex offender in the city’s limits.
In October, Lairds was arrested again by police for violating his parole by breaking his rules of supervision. ..Continued.. by Camille Darko
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
