Law Enforcement to Buy Child Pornography with Bitcoin to Catch Offenders

10-20-17 Arkansas:

A Benton County Arkansas Cyber crimes police unit said they intend to catch child pornographers and sex criminals by mining bitcoin. The county’s sheriff, Shawn Holloway, said that technology is evolving rapidly. In this sense, law enforcers must remain a step ahead to keep up with nascent trends in criminality. This is especially true when it comes to “cyber crime” and dark web activity.

A local news article said, “Today the sheriff announced that members of their cyber crimes unit will now be “mining” bitcoins as a way to catch sexual predators and other criminals who are using the secret web browsers.”

This method will likewise help educate police personnel on cryptocurrency technologies. ..Continued..

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Charges dropped in case against accused rapist

3-17-15 Arkansas:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Criminal charges against an accused rapist were dropped Tuesday due to concerns about the credibility of the victim as a witness, the prosecution said.

Milton Thomas, 58, a parolee charged last year with raping a 70-year-old widow, figured prominently in a recent Associated Press investigation of a national movement to use surveys to predict which prisoners or ex-inmates will commit future crimes. Thomas, who was quoted in the AP investigation saying he was innocent, was assessed three times with three different outcomes.

States are trying to reduce prison populations with these secretive assessments, which supporters said can help reduce prison crowding and save billions of dollars because it is far less expensive for governments to supervise convicts on parole than keep them behind bars.

In the rape case, the assessments were unrelated to the decision to drop the charges against Thomas, a parolee who has been in and out of Arkansas jails since 2008 for non-violent crimes, including check fraud.

The deputy prosecuting attorney in the 6th Judicial District, Tonia Acker, said the rape case against Thomas was based entirely on the statement of the victim.

The AP doesn't identify victims of sexual assault, but Diana Miller, now 71, agreed to be identified by her middle and married names because she said it was important for her story to be told.

Acker said Miller stands by her account, but she would not share her phone records. Based on evidence prosecutors have now, "it did not comport with the allegations in the past."

Thomas' public defender, Lisa Thompson, said the contact between Miller and Thomas — including how long they talked to each other on the phone — was a factor.

Miller said Thomas raped her on a hot summer day last July. In letters to the AP, one of which the AP published, Thomas said he was innocent. He said he and Miller had a previous sexual relationship, which Miller denied.

Thomas will remain incarcerated for at least another month because his parole was revoked for not paying supervision fees, the parole board said.

Thomas kissed his wife Tuesday and told her he had to go back to jail until the parole board makes a decision about whether he should be released.

"This is crazy," Thomas said.

Since June 2013, Thomas was assessed three times to calculate the likelihood he might commit another crime when released on parole. All three assessments produced different results. When Thomas was up for parole in 2013 after serving time for theft, the Arkansas Parole Board assessed him as a high risk to re-offend.

He was released in November of that year, and the state's community supervision agency assessed him again. This one determined Thomas was a low risk, Thomas said, and required the minimum amount of supervision and no rehabilitative programs. After Thomas was arrested on the rape charge last July, the parole board assessed him again and downgraded his risk from high to moderate.

The Arkansas Parole Board said the system worked, and the reason for lowering Thomas' risk was varying accounts of Thomas' age when he was first arrested. ..Source.. by TownHall.com

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Officials try to predict if inmates will commit new crimes, with uneven results

2-25-15 Arkansas, National:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — States are trying to reduce prison populations with secretive, new psychological assessments to predict which inmates will commit future crimes and who might be safe to release, despite serious problems and high-profile failures, an Associated Press investigation found.

These programs are part of a national, data-driven movement to drive down prison populations, reduce recidivism and save billions. They include questionnaires often with more than 100 questions about an offender's education, family, income, job status, history of moving, parents' arrest history — or whether he or she has a phone. A score is affixed to each answer and the result helps shape how the offender will be supervised in the system — or released from custody.

Used for crimes ranging from petty thievery to serial murders, these questionnaires come with their own set of risks, according to the AP's examination.

Many rely on criminals to tell the truth, and jurisdictions don't always check to make sure the answers are accurate. They are used inconsistently across the country, sometimes within the same jurisdiction. The same defendant might be scored differently in the same crime.

Supporters cite some research, such as a 1987 Rand Corp. study that said the surveys accurately can predict the likelihood of repeat offenses as much as 70 percent of the time if they are used correctly. But even the Rand study, one of the seminal pieces of research on the subject, was skeptical of the surveys' overall effectiveness. It's nearly impossible to measure the surveys' impact on recidivism because they are only part of broader efforts.

Some surveys have the potential to punish people for being poor or uneducated by attaching a lower risk to those who have steady work and high levels of education. The surveys are clouded in secrecy. Some states never release the evaluations, shielding government officials from being held accountable for decisions that affect public safety.

"It is a vast improvement over the decision-making process of 20, 30 years ago when parole boards and the courts didn't have any statistical information to base their decisions on," said Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project at the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is working with the Justice Department to shape reforms nationally.

There are dozens of different surveys in use.

In the case of Milton Thomas in Arkansas, a parolee accused of raping a 70-year-old woman, the state's predictions were inconsistent.

Three risk assessment surveys produced three different results. When Thomas, 58, was up for parole in 2013 after serving time for theft, the Arkansas Parole Board assessed him as a high risk to re-offend.

He was released in November of that year, and the state's community supervision agency assessed him again. This one determined Thomas was a low risk, Thomas said, and required the minimum amount of supervision and no rehabilitative programs. After Thomas was arrested on the rape charge last July, the parole board assessed him again and downgraded his risk from high to moderate.

While these results seem to defy common sense, the board said the system worked and there was a simple reason for lowering Thomas' risk: varying accounts of Thomas' age when he was first arrested.

In 2013 in Texas, a routine risk assessment used on sex offenders when they are released from prison found convicted rapist Darren Vann to be a low-risk to re-offend. About a year later, in Indiana, Vann confessed to police that he killed seven women.

Experts said the risk-and-needs assessment surveys should be evaluated every few years. Texas, which in 2000 started using the instrument that evaluated Vann, is just now doing this, a state spokesman said.

The Justice Department's position on the surveys is inconsistent. On one hand, the department is helping bankroll this movement by providing millions of dollars to help states develop and roll out new policies. Yet it's also putting on the brakes and is reluctant to use them for the federal prison population.

"Criminal sentences must be based on the facts, the law, the actual crimes committed, the circumstances surrounding each individual case, and the defendant's history of criminal conduct," Attorney General Eric Holder told the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in August. "They should not be based on unchangeable factors that a person cannot control, or on the possibility of a future crime that has not taken place."

Cost savings, however, make these tools appealing to states.

North Carolina, for instance, could save $560 million by 2017, a Justice Department report concluded. Between 2011 and 2014, the North Carolina prison population decreased by more than 3,000 people, according to the state. These reforms, including the use of risk assessments, have saved the state nearly $84 million, and it plans to route $32 million of those savings for community treatment programs. ..Source.. by EILEEN SULLIVAN and RONNIE GREENE

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Convicted Child Molester Remains Incarcerated Despite Appeals Court Decision

See Also: Ruling reverses portion of sex-abuse sentence

2-19-2015 Arkansas:

The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday vacated the 10-year sentence a convicted sex offender received when a Sebastian County Circuit Court Judge revoked the man’s suspended sentence in a 1995 case.

On Aug. 1, 1995, Alton Henry Hice, now 80, of Greenwood pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse involving two minor females, one a relative. He was sentenced to 120 days in jail and two consecutive 10-year suspended sentences; he also was ordered to register as a sex offender and to have no unsupervised contact with children younger than 16.

The first suspended sentence ran out in 2005. On April 9, 2014, Circuit Court Judge Michael Fitzhugh revoked the second of Hice’s 10-year sentences because a second-degree sexual assault charge was filed against Hice in October 2013 and because of testimony Fitzhugh heard related to that charge in the April 9 hearing.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeals ruled that because Arkansas law requires multiple suspended sentences must run concurrently, the 1995 sentence of consecutive suspended sentences was illegal. Therefore, Hice’s suspended sentences on the 1995 charges ran out in 2005, so no period of suspended sentence existed when he was charged in October 2013.

Hice remains incarcerated because he pleaded guilty to the October 2013 second-degree sexual assault charge on April 30, and received a 10-year prison sentence plus 10 years suspended, to run concurrently with the 10-year prison sentence he received on April 9.

Hice is eligible for parole on the charge he pleaded guilty to April 30, on Jan. 4, 2016, according to the Arkansas Department of Correction website. ..Source.. by Jeff Arnold

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Advocates Question Effectiveness, Fairness of Sex Offender Registry

9-7-2014 Arkansas:

Prosecutors See No Need For Change

Carla Swanson doesn't object to Arkansas' sex offender registry, but she thinks it should contain a lot fewer than the 14,000 names currently listed.

"So many on the registry are not a threat to society," Swanson said. "I'm against it being flooded with so many sex offenders" the predators can't be adequately tracked.

Experts and some studies agree with Swanson, director of Arkansas Time After Time, an organization formed in 2010 to advocate for reforming the sex offender laws.

Registering sex offenders and notifying neighbors for those deemed at a higher risk to re-offend isn't necessarily bad, but there are problems, said Jeffery Walker, chairman of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's criminal justice department.

"Notification has never been known to do much except scare the crap out of people around the offenders," Walker said.

Swanson said she's run into a few state legislators who seem sympathetic to her cause, but they aren't eager to be seen advocating for looser reins on sex offenders.

"Behind closed doors they say they get it, and a few of them I've heard have friends who are on the sex offender registry," Swanson said. "There are some who are totally against me. But I really wish we could find someone who would stand up for us."

State Rep. Greg Leding, D-Fayetteville, agreed, "nobody wants to look like they're pro-sex offender." He understands, however, there may be issues with the laws worth studying.

The former state legislator who led the charge to create the registry in 1997 will have none of that. Pat Flanagin, a former state representative from Forrest City, labels the law's passing a "tremendous" event.

"I think our children are better protected than they were, and people who could be victims of sex offenders have more safeguards," Flanagin said. "There's better access to information about people who committed the crimes."

By the Numbers

Brad Cazort is administrator of the repository division of the Arkansas Crime Information Center. The repository manages and maintains all criminal records and the sex offender registry. The registry had 13,915 people on it as of Aug. 18, including 810 who are dead.

The list contains 1,115 offenders with addresses in Benton and Washington counties.

Cazort oversees five workers in the registry department. It's a challenge to manage so many offenders with so few workers, Cazort said. The department hasn't added personnel in seven years, he said. Meanwhile, the registry keeps growing.

"The best I can tell you, we add about 9 percent a year. That's been pretty consistent for the last several years," he said.

Megan Kanka was 7 years old when a man who lived across the street from her New Jersey home lured her into his house, then raped and murdered her.

July 29 marked the 20th anniversary of Megan's death. Her parents said they had no idea her killer -- their neighbor -- already had two convictions for sexually assaulting young girls. New Jersey legislators moved swiftly to enact Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement to notify the public about registered sex offenders and where they live.

Other states soon followed suit. Flanagin, who served 22 years in the Legislature, said he didn't have much trouble finding support for his House Bill 1061, which became Act 989. It was called the Sex and Child Offender Registration Act of 1997.

Flanagin's interest in the sex offender registry was inspired mainly by a high-profile Arkansas case in which a man who raped a 17-year-old girl in 1984. Flanagin said the girl used to babysit his children.

"He had a record of sex crimes before that," Flanagin said. "So it was pretty clear he was a habitual type offender."

Legislators weighed the benefits of protecting children and sex-crime victims against the privacy rights of offenders, Flanagin said. The American Civil Liberties Union was involved.

Every sex offender is assigned a risk level between one and four based on a state assessment of how likely they are to commit additional sex-related crimes. In 2003, the Legislature mandated those sex offenders assessed at level three or four may not live within 2,000 feet of the property on which any elementary or secondary school or daycare facility is located. Public parks and youth centers were added to that list in 2007.

Wrong Solution

Some who are familiar with the laws say rules such as residency restrictions force offenders into rural areas where they lose the support of friends and family. Being forced to register as a sex offender for at least 15 years makes it hard to find a job or sustain a career. And while the registry alerts people to the presence of sex offenders in their neighborhood they wouldn't otherwise know, the concept of "stranger danger" is overblown, some say.

The registry has done little, if anything, to improve the sex crime rate, Walker said. Besides that, the recidivism rate among sex offenders is below 10 percent for all crimes; the recidivism rate specifically related to sex crimes is below 1 percent, Walker said.

A 2008 study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice analyzed the impacts of Megan's Law in New Jersey on the overall rate of sexual offending over time, the deterrent effect on re-offending and the costs involved in implementing and enforcing the law.

The study concluded Megan's Law had no demonstrated effect in reducing sexual re-offenses. The law had no effect on the type of sexual re-offense or first-time sexual offense, nor had it reduced the number of victims involved in sexual offenses, according to the study.

Tusty ten-Bensel, an assistant professor in the university's department of criminal justice, said there's no evidence to show residency restrictions reduce crime.

"In Little Rock there's only one or two pockets where sex offenders are allowed to live," ten-Bensel said. "They can't live near schools, day cares, parks. It's hard for them to get a job and keep a job. It's hard for them to get to treatment. They can't get to the family and friends that are their support system. The smarter thing would be to have them closer to their support system."

Most people view the sex offender registry and notification system as a way to protect children from strangers, but the concept of "stranger danger" is overblown, ten-Bensel said. A 1997 Department of Justice study reported for nearly 90 percent of the youngest victims of rape -- those younger than 12 -- the offender was someone known to them.

Erin Kraner, a forensic interviewer with the Children's Advocacy Center of Benton County, said "stranger danger" hardly exists. The center provides services for sexually and physically abused children.

"Anyone in a caretaker role, those are the majority of our offenders," Kraner said. "We barely ever see cases involving a stranger."

The Watch Dog

Clifford Burton has worked full-time for the Benton County Sheriff's Office since 2009. His job since November has been to monitor about 170 sex offenders who live in unincorporated parts of Benton County.

All offenders must check in with Burton at least twice per year, on or around July 1 and Dec. 1. Level 4 offenders must check in every 90 days. Burton ensures the information he has on each offender is up to date. That includes everything from where they're living to their tattoos. Offenders also must provide not only their email addresses but the passwords to those addresses.

Burton also sends notification postcards and visits neighbors of dangerous offenders to ensure they are aware of those offenders' presence in the neighborhood. He firmly believes in the laws that apply to offenders.

"I think what we've got is working," Burton said. "The end goal is to have a safer community."

The residency restrictions make sense, he said. In fact, some offenders tell him they're grateful for the restrictions because temptations to re-offend are limited, he said.

"A lot of my offenders make a point of saying, I stay away from children because I know what's going to happen," Burton said.

He arrested a Level 3 offender last month in connection with two felony counts of failure to register as a sex offender and one count of unlawfully living near a school or day care. He said he sees those kinds of violations "over and over."

"You get some who just don't care," he said.

Burton said some offenders commit additional sex crimes, but said he couldn't provide a recidivism rate.

An Offender's View

Rome Swan, 32, appeared to be on the right track. He'd been honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. He was married. He was a graduate student at Arkansas Tech University. He had ambitions of becoming a high school teacher.

Those dreams fell apart in December 2007 when Swan was arrested and charged with Internet stalking of a child, sexual indecency with a child and enticement of a child.

He said he'd begun chatting online with someone who initially identified herself as a 19-year-old woman. It turned out it was an undercover police officer.

He admits he sent the person hundreds of pornographic pictures. The person with whom he was communicating gradually told him she was younger than she said, dropping her age from 19 to 17 to 15 to 14. He became confident the person with whom he was communicating was an undercover officer, declined an invitation to meet the person and cut off communication, he said.

"If you just looked at the wording of the charges, you would think I was a child molester. The reality is I never looked at a child or talked to a child," he said.

Swan fought the charges for more than a year, but accepted a plea agreement of 36 months in prison. His wife had left him by the time he was released from prison in October 2011. An old college friend encouraged him to move to Fayetteville, where he lives now.

Swan was assessed as a Level 2 offender.

"The first year was about stabilizing -- getting a car, finding employment," Swan said of his move. "And now the bigger issues are the ones that keep me up at night. I'm never going to be a real member of society. I'm forever going to be on the outskirts."

Swan works 40 to 60 hours per week in the restaurant business, waiting tables and bartending. Avenues of steadier employment are difficult to come by because of his sex offender status, he said. He believes the laws -- especially the ones restricting residency for Levels 3 and 4 offenders -- are unnecessarily harsh.

"The laws are designed to drive you to the fringes of communities and then drive you back to incarceration," Swan said. "I get it, nobody wants to see children hurt or raped. But there are a lot of people out there not committing sexual violence against children, and they're getting caught in the net."

Prosecutors' Views

John Threet, prosecutor for the 4th Judicial District including Washington and Madison counties, believes the sex offender laws are good. Threet said he'd be surprised if there's any real evidence behind the notion residency restrictions are an obstacle to rehabilitation.

"It's an imposition on them and certainly makes adjusting more difficult, but sometimes that happens when you make choices like committing a sex offense," Threet said.

Nathan Smith, Benton County prosecutor-elect, said residency restrictions apply only to Level 3 and Level 4 offenders.

"To get to Level 3 is a pretty hard thing to do," Smith said. "A lot are in prison or have been in prison. You have to demonstrate a certain kind of proclivity toward that kind of behavior."

The state assessment office estimates a little less than half of the offenders are level 3 or 4. Smith said he doesn't hear complaints about the rules being too strict.

"The only calls I get are, 'I can't believe this Level 2 guy doesn't have residency restrictions.' I think the way the law is currently structured, that's abundantly fair," he said.

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children fully supports sex offender registries, according to Staca Shehan, director of the center's case analysis division in Alexandria, Va. The center employs analysts who assist local law enforcement agencies in tracking down noncompliant offenders.

Public notification systems, Shehan said, "allow the public to know who's living in their community, and being better informed allows them to incorporate safety planning and messaging in their families that's appropriate in a pro-active way."

Assessing Offenders

The Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment program, coordinated by the Department of Correction, is "very thorough," said administrator Sheri Flynn. The program was launched in 1999 because of the need for consistency in the assessment process and because local law enforcement agencies did not have the time or expertise to conduct individualized assessments, Flynn said.

The program has the right to virtually anything that's been written down about an offender. Staff members do face-to-face interviews. Those interviews can reveal crucial information that dramatically affect an offender's level assignment.

Flynn points to one case involving a man who'd been convicted of sexual indecency with a child. Based on that lone conviction, the man would've been classified as a low-risk offender. During the course of the assessment interview, however, the man admitted he'd gotten away with sexually assaulting hundreds of other children during his life. That admission earned him a Level 4 designation.

"Pedophiles have almost always done more than they're caught doing," Flynn said. "They're gifted at getting the child not to tell."

About one-third of Level 3 sex offenders are assigned that level by default. Offenders can default by failing to appear, failing to cooperate, or becoming aggressive during the assessment process.

Community notification is required for offenders assessed at Levels 3 and 4 and certain ones at Level 2.

Most people automatically think of a child molester when they hear the term sex offender, Flynn said. But there's a long list of target offenses for which one is required to register, and not all are related to sex.

"For example, permitting abuse of a child is a registerable offense. Sometimes it's physical abuse. There's really no reason for that person to be on a website anywhere," Flynn said.

Sometimes it's an 18-year-old who had sex with a 14- or 15-year-old. In most cases like that, the convict never goes on to re-offend, Flynn said.

A Mother's Campaign

Swanson's son was in college when his roommates caught him with child pornography on his computer and turned him in to authorities, she said. Her son ended up spending 10 months in prison. He is now a Level 2 offender, on parole and living in Russellville.

"He ended up being on TV, newspapers, lost all his friends, got kicked out of college," Swanson said. "This is a kid who never even got sent to the principal's office. So for a first-time offense, that's what I have a really hard time accepting."

"Time After Time" refers to the group's belief that sex offenders pay the price for their crimes over and over again, Swanson said. The group declares its mission as protecting kids and communities by differentiating between those truly dangerous sexual predators and those who merely made a mistake, served their sentence and are working hard to re-integrate themselves into society.

State law allows someone on the registry to petition for removal. As of Aug. 19, 152 people had petitioned to get their names off the registry successfully, according to a state official.

The law stipulates no one can be removed from the registry without a court order. Lifetime registration is required for Level 4 offenders. Others must remain registered for at least 15 years.

That's one of the rules Swanson would like to see softened.

"You have to hire a lawyer and cross your fingers just to get off the registry," Swanson said.

"We want to see if we can get it to where if you have not done any other crimes and done everything the state has asked you to do, you should be let off the registry." ..Source.. by Dave Perozek

---

By The Numbers

The Registry

• 13,915: People on Arkansas’ sex offender registry.

• 2,353: Sex offenders currently incarcerated.

• 810: People on the registry who are dead.

• 485: People who have been assessed as Level 4 offenders, the most dangerous.

• 152: People who have successfully petitioned to be removed from the registry.

• 73: Percentage of people on the registry who are white men.

• 2.5: Percentage of people on the registry who are white women.

Source: Staff Report

...

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Sides agree to drop Ark. doctor's Medicaid suit

See earlier article Also: Judge order ends Medicaid lawsuit by Ark. doctor.

12-5-2013 Arkansas:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — An Arkansas doctor convicted of possessing child pornography withdrew a lawsuit Thursday in which he challenged a state law that blocked him from collecting payments for treating patients under the state's Medicaid program.

Dr. Lonnie Joseph Parker, who has maintained that he was innocent of the charges, had his license to practice restored in 2005. Earlier this year, after legislators learned Parker had collected nearly $500,000 in Medicaid payments, the General Assembly passed a law banning registered sex offenders from receiving money through the program.

A one-sentence document filed in U.S. District Court didn't give a reason for the decision but noted the case was being withdrawn "without prejudice," meaning Parker could refile the court action. The filing said the state and Parker together agreed to drop the lawsuit.

The judge hadn't yet signed an order dismissing the case. ..Source.. by CHUCK BARTELS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge lets law stand

11-19-2013 Arkansas:

A federal judge in Little Rock denied a motion to enjoin enforcement of a state law on Medicaid practice eligibility pending resolution of the lawsuit brought by a Hope physician because the judge does not believe the physician, who is a registered sex offender, should be allowed near children.

A federal judge in Little Rock denied a motion to enjoin enforcement of a state law on Medicaid practice eligibility pending resolution of the lawsuit brought by a Hope physician because the judge does not believe the physician, who is a registered sex offender, should be allowed near children.

U. S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson, in a 28-page order delivered Nov. 14 in a lawsuit brought by Hope physician Dr. Lonnie Parker, admits that he weighted his decision on the side of caution in the “public interest.”

“While the probability of a non-contact sex offender committing a sexual-contact crime may be low, an appreciable chance of exposing a child of tender years to sexual abuse outweighs any financial harms or inconvenience Act 1504 may cause,” Wilson wrote. “I am going to err, if I am going to err at all, on the side of he children of tender years.”

Wilson admits that he is bypassing “usual practice.”

“Because State authorities have classified Parker as a Level 1 sex offender and have given him a license to practice medicine, at first blush, it appears that a federal district judge should defer to state authorities, which is the usual practice,” Wilson wrote. “After considerable reflection, however, I cannot agree with this classification. The nature of some of his child pornographic photos and the fact that he would be working with young children if his motion were granted is too strong for me.”

“Some writers have criticized courts and legislators for presuming that those convicted only of possession of child pornography present a danger to children,” he wrote. “This criticism may be well taken to some extent, and some rulings and enactments may well be too extensive. Again, however, I must base my decision on the particular facts of this case; and Parker has not convinced me by the greater weight of the evidence that one who possesses child pornography of a sadistic nature does not pose a danger to children of tender years.

“There may be additional evidence at the final hearing which will convince me otherwise, but, for the time being, I conclude that Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction should be, and hereby is, denied,” Wilson wrote.

Wilson has taken arguments by both sides under advisement on the principal issues, but after those issues had been briefed and argued in the initial hearing, he also called for submissions by both attorneys of scientific literature on recidivism rates among registered sex offenders.

John Hardy, of Little Rock, attorney for Parker, and two Medicaid patients, argues that, Parker, who was convicted in Arkansas in 2000 of possessing child pornography and was sentenced to federal prison, then required to register as a Level 1 sex offender in Arkansas, indicating he had no prior history of such offenses, is unconstitutionally affected by Act 1504, which passed in the 2013 legislative session.

He has also argued that Parker had his medical license to practice in Arkansas restored by the Arkansas Medical Board in 2005, and that Parker has maintained he is innocent, and contended at trial and on appeal that he was acting in concert with federal authorities in receiving and possessing certain child pornography images via e-mail.

Hardy said Friday he was “amazed and disheartened” by Wilson's ruling.

“Despite the 'legal reasoning,' the judge seemed to base his decision on a belief that Joseph is somehow a danger to young patients,” Hardy said.

Wilson opens his reasoning in his order by stating his belief that Parker was guilty.

“In this lawsuit, Parker continues to insist that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice,” Wilson wrote. “The jury and Eighth Circuit killed this contention graveyard dead, and I reject it out of hand.”

With that stated, Wilson argues that Parker will not succeed on the merits of the case, a key factor in obtaining a preliminary injunction, which would stay enforcement of the law during the proceeding of the lawsuit. Wilson argues primarily that Act 1504 is consistent with either or both of the ordinary police powers of the state of Arkansas, and/or the consistent application of federal Medicaid law by the state; and, is, therefore, not “punitive” in its application to Parker.

He argues, specifically, that the “moral turpitude” definition rendered by the Arkansas Supreme Court in the case of Fort v. Brinkley applies to the extent that, although licensed by the state to practice medicine, the “moral turpitude” of his crime affected his ability to have his services rendered to everyone who might choose to use them under state Medicaid law.

To the same extent, Wilson said that because there is no conflict between Act 1504 and the federal Medicaid Act, there is no violation of the “free choice of provider” provision of the federal law under the Supremacy Clause of the U. S. Constitution for Parker's patients.

He also argues that Parker's contract with Medicaid, though impaired by Act 1504, it was not to the extent of “substantial impairment.”

“'Substantial impairment,' in analyzing a claim under the Contract Clause, is a term of art,” Wilson wrote. “Substantial impairment depends on 'the extent to which the parties' reasonable expectations have been disrupted.'

“...In other words, the pervasiveness of regulation within an industry can render the impairment insubstantial because parties who willingly enter well-regulated industries do so with little expectation that their contractural rights will prevent a state from exercising any aspect of its police powers that is necessary to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens,” Wilson added. “...Parker cannot effectively argue that he did not expect governmental regulations to interfere with the provisions of his contract.”

He also argued that Parker has no “protected property interest” in his contract with Medicaid, since it can be voluntarily terminated by either party with notice.

“Since Parker is able-bodied and has a medical license, he can earn a living without the contract,” Wilson wrote.

As a result, because Parker is not qualified to practice under Medicaid, Wilson wrote that his patients should have no expectation that he can provide them with services.

“Federal law allows Medicaid beneficiaries to chose among a range of qualified providers,” he wrote. “But, as an overwhelming majority of courts have noted, that choice is not absolute. Where a state has deemed a provider to be unqualified, Medicaid beneficiaries have no protected interest in receiving Medicaid services from that provider. Since Parker is not a qualified provider in the Arkansas Medicaid Program, his patients have little chance of showing a substantive due process violation.”

Wilson admits that Parker can show “irreparable harm” to his practice, but neither he nor his patients are bereft of options, otherwise.

Wilson also admits that he is not inclined to grant Parker's motion because of potential harm to his patients.

“The agency classified Parker as a Level I sex offender, but the guidelines provide that Level I is usually not appropriate for offenders with sexual interest in children or for those offenders who have a history of working with children or around children if the victim was a child,” Wilson writes. “Parker was convicted of possessing child pornography of a sadistic nature... In view of the nature of his conviction and the nature of his practice, I doubt that the Level I classification is accurate.”

Wilson clearly considers “non-contact sex offenders” as a threat, despite his admitted inability to draw a conclusion from the scientific material provided by attorneys on both sides.

“The submitted materials lead me to believe that there is no clear scientific answer,” Wilson wrote. “It is clear, however, that some non-contact sex offenders, such as Parker, do pose a danger or threat of committing sexual-contact crimes.”

He writes that much of the literature deals only with rates of recidivism involving sex offenders who were subsequently arrested or convicted of a latter crime.

“Although Parker has never been arrested or charged with a sexual-contact offense, studies show that between 62 percent and 85 percent of men convicted of non-contact sexual crimes (such as possession of child pornography) and who have no history of committing a contact offense, later admitted to committing at least one undetected sexual-contact offense,” Wilson wrote. ..Source.. by Ken McLemore, Hope Star Editor

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Judge rejects injunction on Arknsas sex offender law

11-14-2013 Arkansas:

A federal judge has rejected a request for a preliminary injunction to block an Arkansas law that prohibits registered sex offenders from receiving Medicaid funds.

U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson issued the ruling Thursday denying the request by Dr. Lonnie Joseph Parker while Parker challenges the constitutionality of the law that was approved by the state Legislature earlier this year and took effect Aug. 16.

Parker was convicted in 2000 of possessing child pornography, but has long maintained his innocence. He had his medical license reinstated in 2005 and argues that the prohibition would effectively put him out of business since most of his patients are on Medicaid.

State officials argue that the law serves the public's interest and that Parker could still practice medicine despite the ban. ..Source.. KNOE.com

---

Federal judge denies injunction against Arkansas ban on Medicaid funds for sex offenders

An Arkansas doctor who was convicted of child pornography offenses failed in his attempt Thursday to get a judge to issue a temporary injunction that would allow him to receive Medicaid funds.

Dr. Lonnie Joseph Parker sued after the Arkansas Legislature passed a law this year that bars registered sex offenders from drawing payments under the Medicaid insurance program for the poor. He had sought a temporary injunction to block enforcement of the law while his lawsuit proceeds.

Parker, who practices in Hope, was convicted in 2000 of possessing child pornography, but he has long maintained his innocence and claimed he obtained the images because he was helping law enforcement. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and served more than four years in prison.

The Arkansas Medical Board reinstated Parker's license to practice in 2005. Parker argued in court papers that the prohibition would effectively put him out of business because most of his patients are on Medicaid.

State officials argue that the law serves the public's interest and that the ban on tapping Medicaid funds would not block Parker from practicing.

U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson filed a 28-page order on Thursday, rejecting the injunction.

"The nature of some of his child pornographic photos and the fact that he would be working with young children if his motion were granted is too strong for me," Wilson wrote.

The ruling notes that Parker possessed images of young children being sexually abused and otherwise defiled.

Parker's attorney, John McNairy Hardy of Little Rock, reiterated Parker's argument that he is innocent.

"I haven't had time to thoroughly analyze Judge Wilson's order, and of course I am very disappointed. I'm also saddened for Dr. Parker, who is innocent of the crime for which he was convicted," Hardy said in an email to The Associated Press.

"We have no plans to appeal (Wilson's order) at this time, but do intend to continue with this case," Hardy wrote.

Parker's lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the state law, which went into effect on Aug. 16.

"Parker has not convinced me by the greater weight of the evidence that one who possesses child pornography of a sadistic nature does not pose a danger to children of tender years," Wilson wrote.

The judge wrote that it is possible additional evidence could come up at the final hearing that could change his mind.

"But, for the time being, I conclude that (Parker's request) should be, and hereby is, denied," Wilson wrote.

Legislators approved the Medicaid restriction after an audit revealed that Parker had received more than $489,000 in payments from the program. ..Source.. by CHUCK BARTELS

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

UPDATING: Arkansas Announces Sex Offender Registry Mobile Application

One other state has an app: North Carolina Sex Offender Registry goes mobile with new app, AG Cooper announces

1-18-2013 Arkansas:

"Knowledge is power." That's how Brad Cazort summed up Arkansas' new mobile application to track registered sex offenders.

Cazort the Repository administrator for the Arkansas Crime Information Center.

The center and in Information Network of Arkansas announced the application's launch on Wednesday.

Technicians developed a beta version months ago and so far three thousand people have downloaded the free application, Cazort said.

The program allows people to search the state's sex offender registry on their smart phones or tablets the same as they can online. The difference is that the mobile application integrates GPS and mapping technology to show the user the location of registered sex offenders in proximity to wherever they happen to be at any given time.

Read carefully, the person looking up a registrant on the registry, would have to know who they are beforehand. i.e., know them on sight. That is the only way any GPS would work to tell the app where they are at that given moment. (Except for false reports) And, if that location was anywhere near where the registrant lives, what good is the App? How many people -normally unknown to you- do you think you can remember?

"If you know what your surroundings are, you'll have a better aspect of how to deal with that and make sure you are aware and protect yourself in those situations," Cazort said.

Developing the application cost about $5,000, he said, adding that money was part of a $300,000 grant from the federal government two years ago to get the state's sex offender registry online and to make the conversion from paper records to digital files. ..Source.. by Jonathan Athens

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Man failed to register, but he wasn't a sex offender

While sexual battery requires registration in Missouri, we cannot find any other battery law requiring registration in Missouri. If anyone knows of one please let us know.

1-7-2012 Arkansas:

Michael P. Howard's case was an unusual one. Twice in four months he was arrested for failing to register as a sex offender, even though he'd never been convicted of a sexual offense.

This week in Baxter County Circuit Court, Prosecutor Ron Kincade reduced the charges against the 30-year-old Howard to obstruction of governmental operations and agreed to a year's probation.

Kincade told the court that while Howard did have a battery conviction in Missouri, "he has never been convicted of any sex offense."

"There is no criminal history of a sexual offense of any kind," said the prosecutor.

However, Kincade said Missouri has "a crazy rule about battery" — or certain battery offenses — that require the person convicted to register with the state. He told the court that under Arkansas statutes, any offender required to register in another state must register in Arkansas as well, yet the only registration system Arkansas has is for sex offenders.

When local authorities discovered Howard was required to register in Missouri and had not registered when he moved into Baxter County, he was charged with failing to register as a sex offender in November 2010 and again in February 2011, even though he was not a sex offender.

Under the amended charge, Howard, who now lives at Booneville, was placed on one year's probation, and in each case he was fined $500 plus $420 in costs and fees. ..Source.. by THOMAS GARRETT

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court rejects constitutional challenge to sex offender law

6-7-2011 Arkansas:

LITTLE ROCK — A federal appeals court today upheld a Fort Smith man’s conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, rejecting his argument that the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional.

William Earl Mefford was convicted in Oklahoma in 1994 of sexual abuse of a minor and was required to register as a sex offender. In November 2009, he was indicted and charged in U.S. District Court in Fort Smith with failure to register as a sex offender under the federal sex offender law.

After U.S. District Judge Robert Dawson rejected a motion by Mefford for dismissal of the indictment, Mefford pleaded guilty on the condition that he be allowed to appeal the denial of his motion.

He argued in his appeal that the federal sex offender law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive fair notice that the sex offender law applied to him, and that the law violates the non-delegation doctrine because it authorizes the U.S. attorney general to determine its applicability to people convicted of sex offenses before its passage.

In a three-page opinion today, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis said all of Mefford’s arguments have been raised by other defendants in past cases and all have been rejected. ..Source.. by John Lyon

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...

Court won’t rethink ruling on sex offender’s daycare job; AG may seek law change

11-11-2010 Arkansas:

LITTLE ROCK — The state Court of Appeals today denied an attorney general’s request to reconsider its September ruling that a convicted sex offender did not violate state law when he took a job at a Pine Bluff daycare center.

Attorney General Dustin McDaniel’s office said it may ask state lawmakers to change the law.

Without comment, the appeals court rejected McDaniel’s request for a rehearing in the case of Joe A. Newman, a Level 4 sex offender who was hired to do carpentry work at a daycare center.

A Jefferson County circuit judge revoked Newman’s probation after Newman’s probation officer learned in 2008 of the job.

Newman appealed, arguing that he did not violate a state law prohibiting Level 3 and 4 sex offenders from taking paid or volunteer positions that require direct interaction with children.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court decision, ruling in September that Newman did not violate the law because his job did not involve interaction with children.

McDaniel said last month that the court should have considered “the Legislature’s clear intent to keep convicted sex offenders away from our children.”

In addition to filing a petition for rehearing last month with the Court of Appeals, McDaniel petitioned the state Supreme Court to review the case. The high court has not yet ruled on the request.

“We are considering a potential legislative fix to this issue if the Supreme Court does not reverse this decision,” Chief Deputy Attorney General Brad Phelps said today.

Phelp said he did not believe the attorney general’s office had approached any legislators yet about filing legislation in the 2011 session. The session begins Jan. 10. ..Source.. by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...