1-11-18 California:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A group representing sex offenders sued again Thursday to challenge a law that requires a marker to be placed in the passports of people convicted of sex offenses against children.
Attorney Janice Bellucci filed the lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of her nonprofit organization, the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, and two California sex offenders.
Opponents of the marker have called it a “Scarlet Letter.”
Former President Barack Obama signed the law in 2016 to comply with a provision of the International Megan’s Law, which seeks to curb child sex tourism and exploitation.
“Never before has this nation stigmatized a class of individuals on a document so foundational to U.S. citizenship,” reads the lawsuit.
A San Francisco-based federal judge dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit in 2016 because the rules were not yet in place.
The State Department said in October it would start using a notice printed inside the back cover of the passport book that reads: “The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to (U.S. law).” ..Continued..
January 13, 2018
Group sues over passport marker for sex offenders
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..
August 9, 2017
Press Democrate Editorial: Sex offenders who are homeless are the greater risk
8-9-17 California:
The California Supreme Court made the right call in 2015 when it struck down the most onerous provisions of Proposition 83, known as Jessica’s Law, which prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school — essentially banning them from finding housing in most cities and suburbs.
In so doing, the measure also kept them away from drug and alcohol treatment facilities, counseling, family and support groups as well as limited their ability to connect with parole officers. A study conducted not long after the measure was approved in 2006 found that more than 70 percent of registered sex offenders in San Diego County were already violating the provisions of the law and had to move. Many did and are still moving. Studies have found that since then, the number of homeless sex offenders in California have more than tripled.
The hope was that after the state Supreme Court lifted the restrictions, the numbers of homeless sex offenders would decline. But that has not been the case. A study found that as of last month, there were 6,329 homeless sex offenders on the California Justice Department’s sex offender registry. That is only about 100 fewer than there were in early 2015.
Our initial concern with Jessica’s Law was that while it placed harsher sentences on sex offenders, including requiring them to be registered for life, it would not necessarily increase safety. And the numbers are showing exactly that. ..Continued..
July 25, 2017
State Supreme Court ruling sides with Fairfield child molester
FAIRFIELD — A Fairfield child molester’s victory Monday in the California Supreme Court will “further burden our overworked and under-resourced superior courts while adding little to the fair determination of (certain criminal) proceedings,” according to a lower court.
That prediction, made by a Court of Appeal in Northern California, revolves around how ex-cons are dealt with by the courts when they are accused of violating conditions of their parole.
Allen D. DeLeon, 50, a Madrone Drive resident, went to prison in 2003 for committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14. He was paroled out of prison in 2012. He was arrested again in August 2013 as part of a parolee compliance task-force sweep. Fairfield police officers and parole agents had found pornographic material at his home, a violation of a condition of his parole.
Judge Robert S. Bowers a few weeks later reviewed a petition without a formal hearing to revoke DeLeon’s parole, found probable cause and revoked his parole pending a final hearing. ..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..
April 15, 2017
Fairfield child molester successful in eviction challenge
FAIRFIELD — The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco sided Friday with a Fairfield child molester who successfully challenged his 2013 eviction from the Fairfield Housing Authority’s Section 8 housing assistance program.
Magid Mokatish, 57, had been receiving money from the program since 1998. He sent the housing authority a letter in 2013 bemoaning his inability to find a suitable home “in part due to my registration requirement.” Mokatish was referring to his sex offender registration that was the result of his committing lewd acts on two children in 2004.
The housing authority decided to terminate Mokatish’s housing voucher assistance in spite of previously recertifying his annual eligibility eight times, each with knowledge that he was a registered sex offender.
The housing authority claimed Mokatish’s felony conviction of committing lewd acts on a child of 14 or 15 years of age amounted to a violation of a regulation barring program participants from engaging in violent criminal activity. An administrative hearing officer and then Judge Michael Mattice rejected arguments from Mokatish’s lawyer that the child sexual assault crime did not add up to violent criminal activity.
Among other things, Mokatish’s lawyer pointed out that while regulations bar registered sex offenders from being admitted to the Section 8 housing program, there were no regulations requiring participants be terminated because they became a registered sex offender.
The divided Court of Appeal ruling pointed out that lewd or lascivious conduct does not necessarily involve the use or threatened use of force or automatically amounts to criminally violent abuse.
The ruling ordered Mattice to reverse his previous decision and directed the Fairfield Housing Authority to pay for all of Mokatish’s legal costs. ..Source.. by Jess Sullivan
March 20, 2017
State high court upholds post-prison rules for sex offenders
Sex offenders in California who have completed their prison sentences must comply with strict monitoring conditions while on probation, including undergoing lie-detector tests about their conduct and receiving treatment from therapists who can reveal their secrets to a probation officer, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Although offenders must take part in the lie-detector interrogation and therapy, none of their answers can be used to file or prove new criminal charges against them, the court said. The goal, instead, is to monitor the former inmates and prevent future crimes, the justices said.
That requires probation officers to gain “complete and accurate information about a probationer’s prior victims, the probationer’s access to potential new victims and the high-risk behavior unique to that sex offender,” Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar said in the unanimous ruling.
The requirements were included in a law the state Legislature passed in 2010 to try to improve community supervision of sex offenders.
Cuéllar noted that California has 75,000 registered sex offenders, more than any other state. Under other state laws, they are required to report to police at least once a year for life, and those who were convicted of the most serious crimes have their addresses listed on a public database.
The court case involved a Santa Clara County youth, Ignacio Garcia, who was charged as an adult and pleaded no contest in January 2013 to lewd conduct with a 9-year-old cousin when Garcia was 16. He served a year in jail, was found by investigators to pose no substantial risk of future sex crimes and was placed on probation for three years, with mandatory therapy and lie-detector tests.
His lawyer challenged the requirements as a violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination. Organizations of psychiatrists and social workers sided with Garcia in his appeal, saying they opposed the requirement that they disclose the responses he gave during therapy to his probation officer and a polygraph examiner.
Cuêllar said lie-detector tests would double-check an offender’s answers to the probation officer, and a therapist could aid in rehabilitation by disclosing pertinent information to the probation officer, with a guarantee that it would go no further
He also noted that under a separate state law, a psychotherapist who learns about child abuse from a patient is already required to notify police.
Daniel Willick, an attorney who represented the California Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, said the organizations believe the court went too far by requiring therapists to reveal an offender’s private information. They had argued that disclosure should be limited to whether the offender cooperated with the therapy and was making progress.
“My clients are concerned that the complete waiver of confidentiality for disclosure by a therapist to a probation officer and polygraph examiner will destroy the effectiveness of the therapy,” Willick said.
The case is People vs. Garcia, S218197. ..Source.. by Bob Egelko
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 1, 2017
Appeals court tosses some child molest convictions in Vacaville case
VACAVILLE — A 22-year-old Vacaville man convicted of sex crimes committed when he was 9 or 10 years old had all but one of those convictions overturned Tuesday by the Court of Appeal in San Francisco.
The appellate ruling also doled out criticism for a Vacaville police detective’s interrogation techniques in 2012 when he met with the juvenile, then 17, at the boy’s high school.
The appeals court reversed the rulings of Judge John B. Ellis, saying there was not enough evidence that the juvenile had committed sex crimes when he was 9 years old. The ruling was based upon the legal standard that any touching or molesting is only a crime when it is done with a sexual intent and that a child that young is presumed unable to have such intent.
The juvenile, referred in court records only as “Sean H.,” lived next door to the victim. She was about 6 years old when she was first molested in the summer of 2004 at his home, where his mother was operating a day care center. That was followed by more assaults, one weeks later and another three years later.
The girl in 2012 wrote a note to her mother saying she was suicidal and described what Sean H. had done to her. The mother arranged for counseling and the counselor reported the allegations to Vacaville police.
The appellate court ruled the girl’s description of the third assault showed there was proof Sean H. had acted with sexual intent.
The appellate court ruling upbraided Detective Andrew Talton, calling his tactics “troubling” when he first talked to Sean H. about the accusations. The ruling went on to chastise Talton for directly misrepresenting the law by telling Sean H. that if the girl had consented to the touching, then there was not a criminal act. Talton also said several things that implied Sean H. would be treated with leniency if he confessed to molesting the girl years earlier.
“The interrogation raises serious questions . . .,” the appellate court stated before deferring final comment on whether Talton had violated the boy’s constitutional rights.
Sean H., who had faced a possible 10 years behind bars, will return to court in the future to be resentenced. ..Source.. by Jess Sullivan
Argument preview: Removal of an immigrant for “sexual abuse of a minor”
3-1-17:
Over the last few years, the Supreme Court has decided a number of criminal-removal cases. Next week, the justices will hear oral argument in another one, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, which stems from the government’s effort to remove a lawful permanent resident for a “sex crime.”
The facts of the case sound like an episode of “Law and Order SVU.” In 2000, Juan Esquivel-Quintana’s parents lawfully brought him to the United States and settled in Sacramento, California. When he was 20 years old, Esquivel-Quintana had consensual sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend.
He later pleaded no contest to violating California Penal Code § 261.5(c), which criminalizes sex with a person “under the age of 18 years” when the age difference between the parties is more than three years.
Esquivel-Quintana was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years’ probation. After his release from jail, he moved from California to Michigan, a state in which the conduct underlying his criminal conviction would not have been a crime. ..Continued.. by Kevin Johnson
February 21, 2017
PARENT CHALLENGES SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY ON REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
A California resident who is required to register as a sex offender due to an offense committed more than 27 years ago and who is also the parent of an elementary school student, filed a lawsuit on February 15th in the California Supreme Court challenging a Ventura School District policy that prohibits him from transporting his child to and from the classroom, as well as from participating in any school activities such as parent-teacher conferences, plays, concerts, and graduation ceremonies.
“The school district policy at issue violates the state and federal Constitutions on numerous counts and is inconsistent with existing state law,” stated attorneys Dennis Riordan and Janice Bellucci. “In addition, the policy harms a child who is being denied parental support at academic and athletic events.”
The petition for writ of mandamus was filed in the California Supreme Court because it raises issues of great public importance that should be resolved promptly. The writ alleges that the school district policy violates the petitioner’s substantive and procedural due process rights provided by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 7, of the California Constitution.
In addition, the writ alleges that the school district policy is inconsistent with several existing state laws, including CA Education Code Section 51101(a) which allows parents to visit schools for many reasons, including participation in school activities.
Another existing state law (CA Penal Code Section 626.81) allows parents who are required to register as
sex offenders to visit a school provided they have a lawful purpose and obtain written permission in advance. The petitioner in this case sought such permission, but has been arbitrarily denied entry onto his child’s campus for any reason. As a result of the District’s ban, the petitioner must maintain such a distance from the school that his young child must walk alone a dangerous distance on a public thoroughfare to get to school. Source: Press Release
Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws
Janice M. Bellucci, Executive Director
ACLU Building – 1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(805) 896-7854
January 30, 2017
San Jose cat killer may have to register as sex offender
Has anyone found an article that shows PROOF (evidence) that would show a sexual element to this crime? Something beyond "May Have",,1-30-17 California:
A San Jose man who stole, tortured and killed 21 cats more than a year ago and a throng of people who have been closely following the case should learn next month when he’ll be sentenced and whether he’ll eventually have to register as a sex offender.
On Jan. 26, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Sharon A. Chatman ordered Robert Roy Farmer, 25, to return to court on March 2, when a sentencing date should be set. Probation department officials, meanwhile, will receive mental health evaluations of Farmer and recommend a sentence by then.
armer has been in custody at the Elmwood Correctional Facility in Milpitas since October 2015, when San Jose police found him sleeping inside his car in Cambrian Park with a dead cat next to him. He was arrested and pleaded guilty last year to 21 felony counts of animal cruelty plus one count each of misdemeanor battery and being under the influence.
According to a necropsy report, the orange female tabby in his car died of blunt force trauma and may have been sexually abused. Crime laboratory results showed a match between DNA found on the cat’s claws and Farmer.
Because of that evidence, Farmer might be required to register as a sex offender, according to Deputy District Attorney Alexandra Ellis.
“The people have asked the court to consider 290 registration, which is sex offender registration,” Ellis told a small crowd of people outside the courtroom after Farmer’s appearance. “The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, of whether the crime…was sexually motivated in nature. It is an issue that is left entirely up to the court, and that’s just something (Chatman’s) going to have to decide.”
Owners of the feline victims and their supporters, who had hoped a sentencing date would have been set last week, indicated frustration by the latest delay.
“The reason it’s taking so long for probation to make a recommendation is there are so many sentencing laws at play,” Ellis said. “Proposition 57 was recently passed, we have realignment that was passed, so all of those things actually affect all of the different ways that he can be sentenced.
“They have to take that into consideration when they’re making their recommendation and also should be prepared,” she added. “For instance, if the judge declines 290 registration, (probation) has to be prepared about what they think should happen in that event, so they’re going to have to make multiple recommendations.”
Miriam Petrova, whose cat GoGo was recorded on video being stolen by Farmer from her front porch and still hasn’t been found, said she was “grateful for the support” from the community and wants Farmer registered as a sex offender.
“I hope so,” Petrova said in an interview. “It’s because he needs to be registered for something. It’s our only hope.”
Farmer’s next court date is 9 a.m. March 2. He could face up to 16 years and four months in prison. ..Source.. by Julia Baum
January 14, 2017
Adelanto sued over sex offender residency rules
1-14-17 California
The city's 2006 ordinance, according to the suit, restricts sex offenders from living within a 2,000-foot radius of any child day care center, public park, school, bus stop or transit stop.
ADELANTO - A federal lawsuit challenges the city's residency restrictions for registered sex offenders, concluding that the local ordinance's exclusion zones "cover virtually all residential property within the city" and are more stringent than rules by similar municipalities.
Filed Dec. 8 in U.S. District Court by Sacramento-based attorney Janice Bellucci, the lawsuit claims Adelanto's local law violates the 14th Amendment, which ensures due process and equal protection of law, and is unconstitutionally vague.
The suit was filed on behalf of Kirk Clymer, a sex offender who "resides in geographic proximity to the City of Adelanto and is in search of a permanent residence."
Adelanto spokesman Michael Stevens said the city could not comment on litigation matters.
The city's 2006 ordinance, according to the suit, restricts sex offenders from living within a 2,000-foot radius of any child day care center, public park, school, bus stop or transit stop. Its effect, Bellucci said, is amplified because the city's inhabited areas are highly concentrated in comparison to its borders.
The ordinance's restrictions are an "arbitrary, politically motivated act imposed by a local government in response to popular sentiments," the lawsuit reads, "based upon misinformation, which seeks retribution against Registrants who constitute a socially outcast minority." ..Continued.. by Shea Johnson
December 21, 2016
New evidence says US sex-offender policies are actually causing more crime
On Sept. 30, 2016, in a Los Angeles suburb, 48-year-old Michael Zinzun, a homeless man on the California sex offender registry, approached a woman sleeping on a park bench and reportedly asked if she wanted to smoke meth. When she turned him down, he allegedly started sexually assaulting her. As she screamed, he dragged her away, pushed her over a three-foot retaining wall, and then raped and tried to strangle her, according to charges filed by the Los Angeles district attorney and local reports. The woman survived, and Zinzun is facing life in prison for rape, kidnapping, and other charges.
Cases like this might seem to argue for even tougher controls on ex-offenders convicted of sex crimes. But new research indicates that the existing sex-offense regime in the US actually may be making repeat sex crimes more likely.
Since the mid-1990s, legislators have devised increasingly byzantine rules for those who have been punished. Those include sending out postcards when an offender moves to a neighborhood, placing warning signs outside offenders’ homes, setting restrictions on what offenders can do on Halloween, and devising “presence” restrictions banning them from places like parks, malls, and museums where children might be present. That ever-tightening leash has produced unintended outcomes with an almost mechanical predictability. Many cities have devised new no-go zones that keep them from living near places like school, parks, and daycares and have seen their homelessness rates spike as a result.
California passed a law in Nov. 2006 forbidding parolees who’d committed a sex crime from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks. Less than five years later, the number of them who were homeless had risen from 88 to almost 2,000. In Oct. 2014, Milwaukee passed an ordinance banning many registrants from living within 2,000 ft of schools, parks, day cares, recreational trails, and playgrounds. The number of homeless registrants promptly soared from 15 to 230 in less than two years, according to an analysis in Oct. 2016 by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Now, new research suggests making it harder for offenders to find a place to live might increase reoffending. In a study released in July 2016, researchers from the California and Canadian justice departments looked at more than 1,600 California sex offenders on probation or parole. Overall, the group’s sex-crime recidivism rates were low–less than 5% during the five-year follow-up period. But those who were homeless were over four times more likely to commit a repeat sex crime than those who weren’t. “Collectively, transient status seems to be associated with higher sexual recidivism rates,” the researchers concluded. That’s likely because those who lack stable homes, jobs, and social connections are more prone to reoffend.
The California Sex Offender Management Board, created by the state legislature and made up of law enforcement officials and other experts, issued a stark warning in a 2011 report: “The Board believes that the rise in homelessness among sex offenders needs attention because it is so closely associated with an increased level of threat to community safety.” An earlier board report had cited nine studies, including from Australia and Great Britain, all of which found a link between homelessness among ex-offenders (including sex offenders) and higher re-offense rates.
It’s not just residency bans that may increase crime. Sex offender registries—publicly posting ex-offenders’ names, photos, and personal information—appear to raise re-offense rates as well. Only the US, the UK, Canada, a few Caribbean countries, India, Chile, and South Korea operate public registries. But US registries, which are state run, are far and away the most extensive in terms of the number of people registered, length of registration, and degree of public access. (No country outside the US appears to restrict where registrants can live.) ..Continued.. by Steve Yoder
October 13, 2016
Fontana School District’s “No Registrants” Policy Challenged in Court
10-13-16 California:
Today a lawsuit was filed in state court challenging a decision by the Fontana Unified School District to prohibit all registrants, including parents, from entering all 45 schools in that district. The five members of the school district board voted unanimously in favor of the “zero tolerance” policy on September 14 after several angry parents threatened to oust any board member who opposed it.
According to the lawsuit, the school board policy is preempted by state law and is inconsistent with other state laws which require schools to allow parents and guardians of school children to participate in the education of their children. The lawsuit requests that the court issue a writ of mandate requiring the school district to stop enforcement of the policy.
“The Fontana Unified School District is violating state law each and every day it enforces the unlawful policy of prohibiting all registrants from entering all schools in that district,” stated civil rights attorney Janice Bellucci.
The lawsuit also alleges that the school board is exceeding its authority by creating and then enforcing a policy that excludes registrants from school campuses. ..Source.. by ACSOL
September 28, 2016
Child Sex Offenders Will Get Warning Stamp On Passport
A child is a person who is under 18 according to federal law (AWA).9-28-16 California:
A federal judge said the rights of registered sex offenders are not violated because of a stamp on their passports that alert foreign governments of the offender's past crimes.
Seven registered sex offenders sued he federal government over the stamp issue, but U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the group hadn't proven they would be hurt by the practice, which is a result of the International Megan's Law, which warns foreign governments of registered sex offenders entering their countries.
"The court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish standing, because they have not alleged a certainly impending injury fairly traceable to the International Megan's Law provisions that they challenge, or which is redressable by the relief sought in the first amended complaint," Hamilton wrote, according to Courthouse News Service. "Because the passport provisions are not yet in effect (and the procedures have not been finalized), plaintiffs cannot show a certainly impending injury."
Hamilton added: "Plaintiffs speculate regarding the possible impact of a passport identifier, suggesting that individuals carrying such passports will be at risk of harm from unknown third parties. Such speculation cannot provide a basis for challenging the statute when the identifier provisions have not even been implemented. Because it is unknown what form the identifier will take, or any of the other details previously discussed, plaintiffs cannot show that they will suffer hardship if the court withholds review."
Janice Bellucci, an attorney for the plaintiffs, all of whom filed anonymously, said her clients would be put in danger when traveling to foreign countries.
“Our U.S. federal government is telling other countries that the person they’ve just marked on the passport is likely to engage in child sex trafficking or child sex tourism,” Bellucci said, according to SF Gate.
One of the plaintiffs said he needed to travel to Iran to claim an inheritance, but the stamp could put his life in danger. And Bellucci said she believes the court's ruling is essentially waiting for that to happen before reconsidering the protocol.
"You have to wait until somebody travels to Iran and they're murdered because their passport has been stamped," she said.
But Hamilton said a factual statement is not an opinion of character and shouldn't necessarily be considered a disparaging remark of that person.
"It is not the speech of the passport holder that is at issue, any more than the speech of the holder of a government-issued identification card is at issue with regard to identifiers such as name, date of birth, height, weight, or eye color,” the judge wrote. ..Source.. by Ray Brown
September 26, 2016
Judge rules against sex offenders in challenge to new federal law
A Bay Area federal judge says the rights of registered sex offenders will not be violated by a new U.S. law that will stamp their legal status on their passports to notify the governments of countries they visit.
The statute, known as the International Megan’s Law and signed by President Obama in February, was largely directed at sex traffickers. It requires the State Department to mark the passports of all registered offenders who have been convicted of sex crimes involving minors.
If sex traffickers is the real focus of the law, then the application to ALL convicted of crimes related to minors, including romeo and juliet type offenses, is misdirected; typical political way of further punishing former offenders!Seven unnamed sex offenders challenged the law, saying it would place them on an international “blacklist” and expose them to harassment and physical harm for past offenses that had nothing to do with sex trafficking. One man said he would probably be killed when he returns to his native Iran to receive an inheritance if his passport bears a sex-offender stamp.
On Friday, Chief U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of Oakland said the offenders’ lawsuit was premature because the State Department has not yet adopted regulations to implement the law. But Hamilton also said the law, when it takes effect, will be a legitimate measure to protect children from sexual exploitation.
The government has an interest in “preventing U.S. persons from committing acts of sexual abuse or exploitation in other countries and in facilitating cooperation with and reciprocal notifications from other countries” whose residents travel to the United States, Hamilton said.
She noted that the U.S. government already notifies any foreign country where a registered child sex offender plans to travel, and issued 2,100 such notifications last year. Stamps on passports lets host countries know when an offender changes previous travel plans, Hamilton said.
The plaintiffs also argued that the law unfairly stigmatizes offenders whose crimes may have been committed decades ago. While California requires most convicted sex offenders to register for life, most other states drop the requirement if an offender can show rehabilitation after a certain number of years. The federal law, however, would require passport stamps for those offenders as well.
But Hamilton said the U.S. Supreme Court “has already found that any stigma associated with convictions for sex offenses is a product of the sex offenders’ prior conviction and cannot be attributed to sex offender registration and notification laws.” ..Source.. by Bob Egelko
December 14, 2015
Asian Girl Band Detained at LAX Because Officials Think They Must Be Sex Workers
12-14-15 California:
Members of the South Korean pop group "Oh My Girl" fall victim to U.S. sex-trafficking hysteria.
Hold onto your Fourth Amendment rights, folks, a new kind of racial profiling is coming to America. Because, really, why would a group of young Asian women come here if not to enter the sex trade? At least that seems to be the attitude of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, who detained the South Korean pop band Oh My Girl at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) last week on alleged suspicion that the young women were sex workers.
On December 9, the eight band members—in Los Angeles for a photo shoot and concert—were denied entry to LAX and held for 15 hours while officials questioned them, according to a statement from Oh My Girl's management. Eventually the band gave up and went back home.
From the statement:
The person in charge of customs asked Oh My Girl and the staff what relationship they had with each other, and one of the staff used the word 'sister' and a misunderstanding occurred. They thought it was strange that we were not blood related, but said that we were 'sisters'. And so they took extra attention to the large quantity of items and outfits we had. And since the members are young girls, they were mistaken as 'working women' (prostitutes) which the U.S. has a big issue with right now.A spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection initially told the Los Angeles Times that it could neither confirm nor deny the group’s story. But an unnamed Customs official later told the paper that the band's statement was false, and the real reason Oh My Girl was detained was because they were trying to travel as tourists, rather than with a performance visa.* Oh My Girl's management claim a performance visa shouldn't have been necessary because the band was participating in a mulit-performer promo event, not holding its own concert. ..Continued.. by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
After the misunderstanding was resolved, we were sent back to the airport immigration office, and had communication with the airport staff, and our opinion was not straightened out. And in the previous step, our phones were seized and it was an extreme situation where we could not contact anyone outside. The company was detained for a long period of 15 hours, and we decided to go back to Korea because of the members who were tired physically and emotionally.
A lawyer in the U.S. is taking the effort to make sure the unjust treatment of being detained is valid or not. We sincerely apologize for causing anxiety and thank everyone who worried for us.
December 4, 2015
Janice’s Journal: Tenacity Results in Victory in Carson
12-4-15 California:
Our tenacity paid off! More than 18 months, 3 lawsuits and 2 protests later, the City of Carson has repealed its presence restrictions.
In a vote of 3 to 0, the City Council decided to rid the City of Carson of its presence restrictions which both violated state law and denied the civil rights of more than 100,000 individuals.
This important vote was taken despite a proclamation in 2014 by a member of the City Council to “declare war” upon registered citizens.
This important vote was taken because we did not give up. Instead, we showed up, we stood up and we spoke up – in the courts and in the streets of Carson.
First, we challenged the city’s ordinance in federal court alleging that the ordinance violated the U.S. Constitution and was preempted by state law. In good faith, we later entered into a Settlement Agreement with the City that specified the City would revise its restrictions and we would dismiss the lawsuit. We dismissed the lawsuit, however, the City reneged and refused to revise its restrictions.
The City Council attempted to justify its position by claiming that the City Manager lacked authority to bind the City despite a provision in the agreement stating that he had such authority. The City Council subsequently fired the City Manager.
Members of the City Council replied to the second lawsuit in state court as well as in the court of public opinion. That is, they postured before city residents during Council meetings by speaking out loudly and angrily about the lawsuit as well as about appellate court decisions which determined that similar laws adopted by other local governments were preempted. During those meetings, Council members acknowledged they were aware of the courts’ decisions and proclaimed they would not abide by them because they disagreed. ..Continued.. by CA-RSOL
